SwiftPrism

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this call mutates nothing. The description adds real context beyond that: the payment occurs on a Stripe page with card/Apple Pay/Link, and 'Agents never enter card details' draws a clear safety boundary. It stops short of stating auth or expiry characteristics of the link.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, what happens next at the payment step, and which sibling to prefer. The return value is front-loaded and the routing advice closes it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return is a link and explaining the downstream payment flow. Safety behavior is covered for a read-only tool. Coverage is nearly complete; only link lifetime/expiry behavior is unaddressed, which is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

One optional parameter with a two-value enum and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description's mention of 'monthly or yearly' echoes the enum but adds no format or default nuance beyond 'Default month' already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — returns the payment link for Elite — and scopes it to monthly or yearly billing. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling start_trial, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit routing guidance: 'Most people should start with start_trial instead.' That names the alternative and the default path. It also clarifies the human-in-the-loop condition (payment happens after the person signs in).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine scope signal by stating it also covers what SwiftPrism does not do, but it says nothing about return format, tier-specific differences in the response, or auth requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the tier scope before the feature list. The feature enumeration is dense but each item earns its place as a content preview; the trailing 'also what SwiftPrism does not do' clause is slightly vague but short.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-param informational tool with no output schema, the description conveys roughly what topics the response covers but not the shape of the response (flat list? per-tier breakdown? prose?). It is adequate to call the tool but not to predict or parse the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates the content covered (headlines, Headline Voice, Market Momentum, holdings, languages) and states it covers Elite and Free tiers, so an agent can infer this returns a feature/availability listing. However, there is no verb ('returns', 'lists') and no differentiation from siblings like get_plans or get_languages, which cover overlapping subscription information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told to call this before start_trial or instead of get_plans, so routing between the four siblings is left entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds domain scoping (which content surfaces the languages apply to, including Headline Voice), but says nothing about return format, ordering, or whether the list is static. Given the annotation coverage, this is an acceptable but not rich addition.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key noun (languages) is front-loaded. It reads as a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement of purpose, which slightly weakens the framing, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is about but not what it returns — language codes vs. display names, ordering, or locale coverage. It is adequate for an agent to identify the tool but leaves the return contract entirely unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no arguments whose semantics need explaining, and the description introduces no parameter concepts that conflict with the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource (supported languages) and scopes it to specific content types — headlines, Deep Insights, Economic Calendar, Headline Voice. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, so it never explicitly says it returns the list of available languages; the agent must infer the action. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools (checkout link, features, plans, trial), which are all unrelated so the risk is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative or related tool is named. There is no indication of whether this should be called before or after get_features/get_plans, or what a caller should do with the result. The description is purely definitional.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance ('generated from the live price catalog'), implying freshness, but says nothing about caching, volatility of prices, or how results are shaped.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, no waste, with the core payload (plans and prices) front-loaded before the supporting detail about the trial and the catalog source.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the key content dimensions an agent needs: plans, prices, country variation, and trial terms. Only the exact result shape is left implicit, which is acceptable here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The phrase 'by country' usefully signals that country variation is handled internally rather than through an input, which prevents an agent from hunting for a nonexistent country argument.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (SwiftPrism plans and prices, free trial terms) and adds scope detail ('by country') plus the concrete plan lineup (Elite, Free). It is clearly distinct from get_features/get_languages/start_trial in substance, though it never explicitly says so.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not say to call this before create_checkout_link or start_trial, nor does it point to any alternative for related information — the agent must infer the role from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false) by delimiting side effects precisely: it does not create an account and does not send email, the person completes account creation and Terms acceptance, and no payment method is involved. That is exactly the boundary detail an agent needs before calling a link-generating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short, front-loaded sentences leading with the return value, then scope constraints. No filler or repetition; each sentence contributes a distinct fact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return value (a link). Safety is covered by annotations, and the side-effect boundaries are spelled out, leaving nothing material missing for a correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one optional parameter (reading_language) and its schema description is complete, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about language handling, which is acceptable at 100% schema coverage but adds no extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the link a person opens to start the free Elite trial. The 'No card is needed' and 'does not create an account or send email' lines implicitly contrast it with a paid checkout flow, but the nearest sibling (create_checkout_link) is never named, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for use: the free Elite trial, self-service signup, no card required, the person accepts Terms themselves. It does not name an alternative tool or state an explicit when-not condition, so the routing against create_checkout_link must still be inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.