Masterminds HQ

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate basic safety. The description adds a small behavioral detail: the link is 'canonical' and requires a 'valid' offer_id, suggesting validation and determinism. However, it does not disclose whether generating the link creates a persistent Stripe object, requires authentication, or has side effects beyond returning a URL.

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?

The entire description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Generates a canonical hosted Stripe checkout link') and includes a necessary condition. No filler words or redundant details. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple tool with three fully documented parameters, the description covers the basic purpose. However, the absence of an output schema means the description could have explained what the tool returns (e.g., a URL string), and it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over prepare_purchase_intent. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but not complete.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (offer_id, request_id, locale), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description only restates the offer_id concept ('valid public offer_id') without adding new information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: generating a canonical hosted Stripe checkout link for a valid public offer_id. The verb 'Generates' and resource 'checkout link' are specific, and the qualification 'for a valid public offer_id' adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool prepare_purchase_intent, which might serve a related but distinct purpose.

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?

The description gives minimal usage context: it mentions the tool works 'for a valid public offer_id', implying that a valid offer is required. It does not state when to use this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any exclusions. Given the sibling tool prepare_purchase_intent exists, explicit guidance on when to choose one over the other would be valuable.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the primary safety behavior. The description adds the return content but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or response format. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that starts with the verb 'Returns' and contains no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 simple zero-parameter metadata tool with a readOnly annotation, the description adequately summarizes the outputs. It could have mentioned when to use it or how to interpret the response, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description correctly omits parameter details. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies three distinct outputs: system capabilities, public authentication boundaries, and available tool descriptions. This clearly sets it apart from the sibling tools that handle offers, proofs, and events.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a discovery/metadata endpoint or suggest using it before other tools, and it does not state when it would be inappropriate.

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 include readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already declared. The description adds that the metadata is 'public', which indicates no sensitive data, but it does not disclose behavior for missing or invalid IDs, pagination, or response structure. Some value is added beyond annotations, but context is thin.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with zero repetition or filler. This is an excellent model of conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only), but there is no output schema and the description only says 'detailed public offer metadata' without specifying what fields are included. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, leaving an agent with partial understanding of what to expect.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: offer_id is described as 'The public offer identifier'. The description merely echoes 'by offer_id' without adding additional semantics like format, source, or required preconditions. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource as 'detailed public offer metadata by offer_id'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_offers, which likely returns multiple offers, and makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when you have a specific offer_id and need its metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_offers or search_public_proof. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context like 'public' and 'verified', but it does not disclose potential behaviors such as error cases, whether the record might be absent, or any additional response details.

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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and scope. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter read operation with a readOnlyHint annotation, this description is largely sufficient for tool selection and invocation. It does not include return format or error behavior, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the low complexity keeps this from being a significant deficiency.

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 input schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with the description 'The public proof ID' (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'by ID' adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetches') tied to a clear resource ('single verified public proof record by ID'), and explicitly scopes the operation to lookup by ID. This differentiates it from the sibling search_public_proof, which implies search-like behavior rather than direct fetch.

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?

The 'by ID' phrasing implies this tool should be used when the agent already knows the public proof ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_public_proof or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains implicit.

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, and 'Lists' aligns with a read-only operation. The description adds scope details ('upcoming public') beyond the annotation but does not disclose return format or pagination. With annotations covering the safety profile, a moderate score is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence containing only the essential verb, resource, and scope. There is no wasted wording.

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 listing tool, the description fully conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No output schema exists, but the simplicity of the tool does not require additional description to be complete.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics but also does not need to.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'upcoming public Masterminds HQ events and summits', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_offers by focusing on events rather than offers.

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?

The description provides clear context with 'upcoming' and 'public', narrowing the scope. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but no other sibling tool lists events, so the usage context is unambiguous.

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, covering safety. The description adds scoping context (active, public, agent-discoverable) but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, ordering, or what constitutes 'active' or 'agent-discoverable'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The verb is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 simple 0-parameter listing tool, the description is adequate. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the structure of returned offer objects, which would improve completeness. The read-only annotation and simple nature of the tool keep this from being a larger gap.

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 has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and clearly identifies the resource ('active, agent-discoverable public Masterminds HQ offers'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_offer and recommend_offer, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description implies usage (use this to list offers) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_offer for a single offer or list_events for events. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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 indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the key behavioral detail that it does not charge, preventing misuse. It doesn't describe response formats or side effects beyond that, but the addition of the non-charging boundary is valuable and goes beyond annotations.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clear exclusion. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains the action and non-charging behavior but does not mention what response the agent should expect or any required prerequisites beyond what the schema shows. It is adequate but lacks completeness for a tool that likely returns a prepared intent or ID.

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 schema provides full coverage of all six parameters with individual descriptions (e.g., 'Public offer ID', 'Opaque payer ID'), so the tool description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Prepares'), resource ('PurchaseIntent object'), and purpose ('for future delegated payment adapters'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself by noting 'Does not charge', which sets it apart from other payment-related tools like create_checkout_link.

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?

It provides clear context that this is for preparing a payment intent for delegated adapters, and the explicit 'Does not charge' acts as a when-not-to-use warning for immediate charges. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exhaustive when/when-not guidance, so it's slightly below a 5.

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?

The description adds behavioral insights beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: 'deterministically' and 'without inventing fit' tell the agent that the tool will not fabricate a match and may return no offer if no fit exists. This is useful context not captured by annotations.

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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and key constraints. Every phrase contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 should explain what the return value looks like (e.g., an offer object or null) but does not. It also omits how parameters interact when multiple are provided. Given the tool's complexity and five optional parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions goal, delivery mode, and price, but does not clarify how multiple parameters combine or prioritize each other. It adds minimal semantics beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'recommends an offer.' It also specifies the basis (goal, delivery mode, or price) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_offers by emphasizing deterministic, non-fabricated recommendations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_offer or list_offers. The description only explains what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases from the sibling tool names.

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, and the description's 'Searches' aligns with a read-only operation. The description adds the 'public' scope, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or any limitations. With annotation coverage, this meets the baseline but provides limited extra context.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to process quickly.

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?

This is a simple read-only search tool with one fully documented parameter. The description covers the essential scope and differentiates from siblings. While it doesn't describe the return shape, a search tool's output is reasonably predictable, and the read-only annotation reduces risk. It is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'query' as 'FAQ search query' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies where the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses the specific verb 'Searches' and clearly identifies the resources: 'public frequently asked questions and membership details.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'search_public_proof' by naming different content types, so an agent can tell which search to use.

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?

The description gives clear context: it is for searching public FAQs and membership details. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'public' qualifier and resource scope imply the intended use case and differentiate it from similar search tools.

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?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true covers the safety profile, so the description is not required to reiterate that. The addition of 'verified public' adds context about the data scope, but it does not disclose behavior such as result limits, ordering, or what fields are returned, which would be useful given there is no output schema.

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?

The description is a single, informative sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It earns its place and is immediately clear.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only) and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., a list of matching records), which leaves some ambiguity for an agent selecting this tool.

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 sole parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema as 'Search query keyword' (100% schema description coverage). The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('verified public case studies, testimonials, and proof records'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_faqs (which searches FAQs) and get_public_proof (which likely retrieves a single proof record).

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be preferred.

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