AI Arena Agent Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds only that events are 'collected' and matched by keywords, but it does not explain matching semantics, result behavior, or pagination. It does not contradict the 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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. The phrase 'other transparent keywords' adds slight ambiguity but does not create meaningful bloat.

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 and zero parameter coverage, the description leaves an agent without enough information to reliably construct a query or anticipate results. For a simple keyword-search tool, the definition is minimally adequate but under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented limit, query, and capability parameters. It lists example keyword categories but never maps them to specific parameters, leaving unclear which field should carry the keyword string.

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 clear verb and resource: find collected events by matching keywords such as tooling, calibration, and MRO. It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling aerospace_events tool and uses the vague phrase 'other transparent keywords.'

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 given about when to use this tool instead of aerospace_events or any other sibling. The description only implies keyword searching, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: the data is 'locally collected' (not real-time), includes 'original URLs', and has a 'reported/verified distinction' – all beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.

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, tightly worded sentence (15 words) that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase adds meaningful distinction; 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?

Given the tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain parameter semantics, response format, or how the 'reported/verified distinction' affects results. The agent cannot reliably construct a query without further information.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the four parameters (limit, query, source, category). With no parameter explanations in either the schema or description, agents have zero guidance on how to formulate a search, making the tool effectively opaque.

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 ('Search') and resource ('aerospace events'), and adds distinctive attributes ('locally collected', 'dated', 'original URLs', 'reported/verified distinction') that clearly differentiate it from sibling aerospace tools like aerospace_capability_signals or aerospace_glossary.

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 is clear about what it does but offers no guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no hint at which sibling tools cover overlapping territory. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the resource name.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that outputs are 'plain-language explanations', indicating a human-readable format, but does not disclose other behaviors such as response size or whether it returns exact matches. With annotations covering the core safety profile, the additional value is modest.

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 of 10 words, front-loading the core purpose without any filler. It is appropriately concise and earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does. However, it lacks any structural guidance on parameter usage, which might be expected for a tool with two parameters.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It explains the general purpose but fails to describe how parameters are used, what the response format looks like, or any constraints. An agent would not know how to formulate a query or interpret the response, making the description insufficient for effective use.

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 0% description coverage, meaning 'query' and 'category' have no documented meaning. The description does not explain what these parameters are for or how they relate to the tool's function. An agent would have no guidance on whether to supply a query, a category, or both, and what each expects. This is a critical gap.

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 a specific verb ('provides explanations') and resource ('aviation abbreviations and compliance terms'), which distinguishes it from sibling aerospace tools like aerospace_events or aerospace_part_observations. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from others.

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 for looking up definitions of abbreviations and compliance terms, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. The context is clear enough for a simple glossary but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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 disclose read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying 'current' and 'collected' and by naming the outputs as counts and collector status, but it does not explain what collector status includes or what the payload looks like.

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 with no wasteful filler. It states the action, the resource, and the result focus in the most direct way possible.

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 parameterless, read-only overview tool with strong annotations, this description is largely complete: an agent knows what the tool returns at a high level and can invoke it without prerequisites or configuration. The only minor gap is that 'collector status' is not elaborated, but that is not critical for a no-argument status overview.

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 is empty with no parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to explain beyond schema details, and the description does not introduce conflicting parameter expectations.

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 action ('Read'), a precise resource ('current collected aerospace source/stock counts and collector status'), and the tool's scope. This also distinguishes it from sibling aerospace data tools such as aerospace_events and aerospace_source_directory, which target different data types.

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 this tool is for checking current collection counts and collector status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct guidance about when not to use this tool or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output contains 'dated stock/price history' and 'authorized public supplier observations', which is useful context about the nature of the data, but it does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or data-source caveats beyond what annotations imply.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action verb and the resource, immediately conveying both purpose and input constraint without wasted words.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description communicates the core return payload ('observations' and 'dated stock/price history') and the exact-match requirement. It does not describe the exact structure of returned records, but the low complexity and the coverage provided by annotations make this adequate. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on how this relates to the similarly named 'aerospace_part_price_trend'.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% schema coverage), so the description must carry the semantic weight. It adds the key constraint that the part number must be 'exact', which is important for a lookup tool and not present in the schema's min/max length information. It does not provide example formats or explain what 'observations' means, but for a single simple parameter the added clarity is meaningful.

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 ('Return') and names the resource ('authorized public supplier observations and dated stock/price history') tied to an exact part number. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'aerospace_part_price_trend', which likely overlaps on price-history data.

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 phrase 'for an exact part number' implies the tool is for exact-match lookups rather than fuzzy or partial searches, giving some usage context. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over related aerospace siblings such as 'aerospace_part_price_trend' or 'aerospace_events', nor does it list any exclusions.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds deeper context by clarifying that the data are recorded prices, not transaction prices, and that comparisons must respect supplier/condition/currency alignment. This is meaningful behavioral guidance beyond the 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, tight sentence with no filler. The main action and the most important constraint are front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns or how results are structured. The price-trend semantics are clear enough for basic selection, but an agent would still lack explicit output expectations.

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 0%, and the description does not explain how the required part_number parameter is used or what is expected beyond the schema's min/max length. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage but does not, parameter semantics are under-specified.

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 and resource: 'Compare recorded prices.' It communicates that this tool deals with recorded price comparisons for a part, and the title adds 'Aerospace Part Price Trends.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related aerospace sibling tools like aerospace_part_observations.

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 operating constraints: compare only within the same supplier, condition, and currency, and never infer transaction prices. This implies when it is appropriate to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions relative to sibling 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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results distinguish free versus paid sources and that access/integration caveats are included. It does not detail the output format, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 one tightly worded, front-loaded sentence. The core action and scope appear immediately, and the caveats promise adds meaningful information without filler. It is appropriately sized for a low-complexity, two-parameter tool.

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, with only two optional parameters and no output schema, and the description conveys what the directory offers. However, an agent still lacks guidance on how to use the query and category parameters, which keeps this from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'query' or 'category' mean or how they affect results. With two undocumented parameters and no enums, the description should compensate for the schema gap, but it does not.

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 ('Discover') and names concrete resource types: aviation APIs, regulatory portals, and licensed suppliers. It also communicates a clear differentiator by distinguishing free versus paid sources, which positions this as a directory tool rather than an analysis or events tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 the tool should be used when someone wants to find aviation/aerospace data sources with cost and access caveats. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the many sibling tools are referenced as alternatives. This is implied usage only.

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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only the informational payload (free-beta flag, pricing tiers) and says nothing about auth, rate limits, or whether the beta flag affects behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The most useful information (what fields are returned) comes immediately after the verb+resource.

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 compensates by naming the three values an agent will get back. It stops short of describing the response shape or format, but for a trivial zero-param status call that omission 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming this is a no-argument lookup, which the empty schema already conveys.

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 ('Check') and resource ('AI Arena') and enumerates the concrete pieces of information returned: version, free-beta mode, and pricing tiers. Sibling tools are all unrelated SEC/tender/award tools, so no differentiation is needed. Slightly short of 5 only because 'Check' is a generic verb.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. However, for a zero-parameter status endpoint the intended usage (query current service/version/pricing state) is strongly implied by the name and description. Minimum-viable guidance.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds modest extra context beyond that: 'FREE beta' conveys availability/cost caveats and 'compact metadata' hints at response shape. No contradiction exists, but the additions are thin rather than rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

At roughly nine words across two sentences, the description is tight and front-loads the distinctive 'FREE beta' signal ahead of the verb+resource statement. There is no fluff and every word earns its place. It is near-ideal in size and ordering, with the only lost opportunity being the absence of a sibling pointer that could have fit just as cheaply.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with rich annotations, the core purpose is adequately conveyed without need for an output schema. The notable gap is the complete absence of guidance on when the Basic variant should be preferred over the evidence variant, or how it compares to the other country open-data portals among the 33 siblings. Since the basic/evidence split is the central selection decision an agent faces here, the description is only partially 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'Search Australian Government data.gov.au datasets' tells the agent what the query filters against, adding genuine meaning to the query parameter. The limit parameter is left unexplained, though its min/max constraints in the schema are self-evident. It adds useful domain semantics but does not fully shoulder the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('Australian Government data.gov.au datasets'), so an agent knows exactly what domain the tool targets. The phrase 'compact metadata' hints at a leaner payload, loosely distinguishing it from the australia_open_data_search_evidence sibling, but it never names an alternative. It is clear and specific, though sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit, so not a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus australia_open_data_search_evidence or the other country-specific open-data search basics. 'FREE beta' signals cost/status but does not guide tool selection. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that 'basic' means a lighter alternative to the evidence variant, which is precisely the routing information a description should supply.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description modestly adds context by noting it is free/beta and listing what results include, but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or evidence-specific behavior.

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, economical sentence that front-loads the key resource and result features. The 'FREE beta' phrase is slightly promotional but not distracting; the description earns its place without excess.

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 two-parameter search tool with rich annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and output fields. However, it omits the crucial distinction between 'evidence' and 'basic' sibling tools, which is important given no output schema and no parameter descriptions.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. 'Search' implies query is a search term, but limit semantics and constraints are left entirely to the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the low 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Australian dataset search' with useful result attributes (descriptions, resource links, formats, provenance). It is clear and informative, but it does not differentiate this 'evidence' variant from the sibling 'australia_open_data_search_basic' tool.

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 the sibling 'basic' version or any other alternative. The only contextual hint is the 'FREE beta' note, which does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool 'documents' information, which suggests a non-mutating, informational response. However, it does not disclose what form the documentation takes (e.g., static text, structured list) or whether it covers all NHTSA endpoints. The description adds some behavioral context but not deeply, given the strong 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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Document access status, scope and limitations') and specifies the scope. Every word contributes meaning. It is as concise as possible while remaining informative.

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 directory tool intended to guide usage of NHTSA services, the description is too sparse. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of available endpoints, authentication details, rate limits), nor does it point to related tools for actual data retrieval. With no output schema and no additional context, an agent may call this tool and be uncertain how to interpret the result or how to proceed to the actual recall services. This is a significant gap for a meta-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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. The schema itself is trivially complete (an empty object). Per the calibration rule, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter-specific context, and it does not leave any parameter ambiguity.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Document'), names the exact resource (US NHTSA recall, complaint and VIN services), and specifies what is documented (access status, scope, limitations). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nhtsa_vehicle_recalls_basic (which likely returns recall data) and aerospace_source_directory (different domain). An agent can immediately grasp what this tool is for.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a meta-tool to consult before using the actual NHTSA services, nor does it reference any sibling tools. The context implies a directory/overview, but explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' instructions are absent, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: the data is live, it is not VIN-specific, and no personal VIN exposure occurs. This helps set accurate expectations about output scope and privacy.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by two important exclusions. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of annotations or schema.

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 relatively simple read-only tool with required parameters and clear scope, the description conveys what data is returned and what is explicitly not returned. With no output schema, the phrases 'recalls and complaints' and 'no VIN-specific recall status' give enough context for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter semantics, but it only indirectly references year, make, and model. It does not mention the optional limit parameter or explain parameter formats, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource (NHTSA recalls and complaints) and the scope (model-year/make/model), and explicitly excludes VIN-specific recall status. It lacks a strong action verb, but the intent is unambiguous. It differentiates itself from VIN-focused lookups, though not from the specific sibling tools by name.

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 usage context is implied: use this for model-year/make/model NHTSA recall and complaint data, not for VIN-level status. However, it does not name alternatives like nhtsa_vehicle_recalls_basic or automotive_safety_source_directory, nor does it say when those should be preferred.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'FREE beta' status and 'compact metadata' return scope, which are useful behavioral hints. However, it does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or what 'compact metadata' includes, which would add value beyond the 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key facts: free beta, search action, resource, and output type. It earns its place with no filler. It loses one point for not using the space to add a usage hint or sibling differentiation, but it is appropriately concise.

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 read-only search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, the description does not mention what 'compact metadata' contains, how results are ordered, or any limitations (e.g., beta instability), which an agent might need to set expectations. It is minimally viable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'search' and 'compact metadata' but does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters beyond what the schema already shows (types, min/max). The 'limit' parameter's effect on result count is implied but not stated. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema provides structural constraints, but the description adds minimal semantic 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('Government of Canada open datasets'), and a scope ('return compact metadata'). It clearly identifies the tool as a basic search variant, which helps distinguish it from the 'evidence' sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or contrast with it, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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: it is a basic search tool for Canadian open data, and the sibling list shows an 'evidence' variant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the evidence variant or other search tools. The 'FREE beta' note hints at availability but provides no concrete guidance on selection.

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 annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds only a free/beta status and the kind of fields returned; it does not cover rate limits, pagination, query syntax, or failure behavior. This is moderate transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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 one compact sentence with no redundant repetition. The output components are listed efficientlyholidays. 'FREE beta' is slightly peripheral but not bloated, so the overall structure is appropriately sized.

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 two-parameter search with strong annotations, the description is close to adequate: it states purpose and result contents. However, it lacks explicit sibling routing, parameter semantics, and any operational context such as pagination or behavioral edge cases. An agent can infer how to call it, but the context is not fully 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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'query' or 'limit'. The parameter names and bounds make the general intent inferable, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions by explaining defaults, ordering, or how limit 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 identifies the resource ('Canada dataset search') and lists the result components: descriptions, resource links, formats, and provenance. It is more specific than the tool name alone, but it does not explicitly differentiate this 'evidence' variant from the sibling canada_open_data_search_basic. The distinction relies on the title rather than the description text.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of canada_open_data_search_basic or any other sibling. The 'FREE beta' note conveys status but not usage context. There are no explicit selection criteria, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'FREE beta' status, which is a useful caveat about reliability/availability, and mentions the expert-query syntax, which hints at query complexity. However, it does not disclose behavior like result limits, error handling, or the fact that the query syntax may be complex for non-experts. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, a 3 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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action ('Search EU Tenders Electronic Daily notices') and the query syntax. The 'FREE beta' prefix is arguably unnecessary but short. It is concise and readable, though it could be slightly improved by removing the marketing-style prefix.

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 two-parameter search tool with read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain the 'basic' vs 'evidence' distinction that is evident from sibling tool names, nor does it describe the return format (no output schema exists). An agent would benefit from knowing that this is the lightweight/basic search and that 'eu_ted_search_evidence' exists for more detailed or evidence-oriented queries. The lack of output schema makes the missing return-format context more significant.

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 50%: the 'query' parameter has a description ('TED expert-search query syntax'), but 'limit' has no description. The tool description adds the context that the query syntax is 'expert-query syntax', which reinforces the schema's parameter description but does not explain the limit parameter's semantics or default behavior. With half the parameters undocumented in the schema and no additional detail in the description, the description only partially compensates.

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 ('Search') and resource ('EU Tenders Electronic Daily notices') and mentions the query syntax ('TED expert-query syntax'). It distinguishes the tool as a basic search variant, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'eu_ted_search_evidence' tool. The 'FREE beta' prefix is a minor distraction but does not obscure the core 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 implies usage for searching EU TED notices and notes the query syntax, but it does not explicitly state when to use this basic variant versus the 'eu_ted_search_evidence' sibling. There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would guide an agent to choose this tool over others. The context signals and sibling list suggest a basic/evidence split, but the description itself does not articulate it.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds only 'FREE beta' (availability) and 'selected notice fields and provenance' (output hint), but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or what 'provenance' means behaviorally. The added value is minimal but not contradictory.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it opens with 'FREE beta' – a marketing statement that does not serve the agent's decision-making. The core phrase 'EU TED procurement search' is front-loaded, but the rest adds little structural clarity.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical details: what fields are returned, what 'provenance' means, and whether pagination or limits apply. It also fails to explain the evidence vs. basic distinction, which is essential given the sibling list. The description is insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly with full confidence.

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 50%: the query parameter has a description, but limit does not. The tool description adds no parameter information at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter. An agent cannot infer limit's meaning or constraints beyond the schema's numeric bounds.

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 clear action and resource: 'EU TED procurement search' identifies what it does. However, 'with selected notice fields and provenance' is vague and does not distinguish this from the sibling eu_ted_search_basic, which likely has a similar core 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this evidence variant versus the basic variant. The sibling list includes eu_ted_search_basic, but the description does not mention it or explain the difference, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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 establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific matching context 'by product text' and the beta status, but no additional behavioral constraints such as rate limits, pagination, or result format. This is consistent with, and slightly extends, the annotation profile.

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 extremely compact, with only two short sentences. It front-loads the practical 'FREE beta' caveat and then states the core function without verbosity. The brevity is appropriate, though 'FREE beta' is arguably lower value than a usage note.

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 read-only search with three parameters, the description is minimally workable: it tells the agent what to search and the available categories. However, with no output schema and no description of result limits or the distinction from the 'evidence' sibling, an agent cannot fully anticipate what the tool returns or when to choose it.

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 0%, but the description partially compensates by indicating that 'query' matches product text and 'category' covers drug/device/food. However, the optional 'limit' parameter is not described, leaving its purpose and effect undocumented.

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 a specific action ('Search'), the target resource ('FDA drug, device or food recall enforcement reports'), and the search mechanism ('by product text'). It distinguishes the tool from obvious non-FDA siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the fda_recall_search_evidence sibling beyond the tool name.

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 'basic' version versus the 'evidence' sibling or any other alternative. It only notes that it is a 'FREE beta,' which is not a usage instruction. An agent is left to infer when this tool is preferred.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a free-beta caveat and lists returned fields, but does not disclose formatting, pagination, limits, or provenance meaning.

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?

Eleven words with no filler; the free-beta caveat is front-loaded and the return contents are stated efficiently. The description is appropriately sized for its scope.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and a close basic sibling, this is thin. It names result fields but not their shape, gives no pagination or date-format expectations, and offers no rationale for choosing evidence over basic.

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 0%, and the description does not explain query, category, or limit semantics. Category's enum is self-explanatory and query/limit are guessable, but the description adds no parameter-level value to compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource (FDA recalls) and what it returns (matches with reason, dates, distribution, provenance), so an agent knows the tool searches recall records. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling fda_recall_search_basic, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use the evidence variant instead of fda_recall_search_basic or other evidence tools. 'FREE beta' signals status, not selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the suffix.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'FREE beta' (availability/cost status) and specifies what document types are searched, which is useful. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or output limitations after the annotations already carry the main behavioral disclosures.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: 'FREE beta. Compact Federal Register search for current rules...' Each fragment adds a distinct piece of information (free/beta, compactness, search scope). It is efficient, but the extreme brevity leaves out parameter and usage context that an agent would need.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too minimal to be fully self-sufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, expected input format, or when to choose this over the evidence variant. The annotations cover safety, but not usage context or operational details.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain query and limit parameters. It never mentions either parameter, nor their constraints (query required, min 2/max 160; limit 1–25). The description only lists the content categories searched, adding no meaning beyond the bare parameter names in 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 a specific verb and resource: a 'Compact Federal Register search' covering 'current rules, proposed rules, notices and presidential documents.' It does not explicitly reference or contrast the sibling federal_register_search_evidence, though the title's 'Basic' and the word 'Compact' imply a limited version. This is clear purpose without direct sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as federal_register_search_evidence. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The phrase 'Compact' vaguely suggests limited scope, but no explicit usage direction is given.

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'FREE beta' indicating potential instability, and describes output content (abstracts, agency/date context, provenance). It does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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, but it leads with 'FREE beta' which is not the core purpose. The core functionality is stated but could be front-loaded better for immediate clarity.

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 search tool with two parameters, the description omits parameter semantics and usage guidance. It does not explain what the evidence variant adds beyond the basic, nor any limitations. The output format is not described, but that may be acceptable given no output schema.

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 has no descriptions and the description does not mention parameters. The query and limit parameters are left unexplained, so an agent must infer their meaning from the tool name alone. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 it returns Federal Register results with abstracts, agency/date context, and provenance, clearly indicating a search tool for Federal Register documents. It distinguishes from the basic sibling by mentioning additional context, though it does not explicitly name the action 'search'.

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 on when to use this tool versus the basic version or other evidence tools. It does not mention any conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'recent' and 'FREE beta' but does not disclose response format, pagination, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations, but adds little beyond them.

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 and very concise, but it lacks essential details. The leading 'FREE beta' is not essential and could be omitted. It is not structured to front-load the most important information for an agent.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. An agent needs to know what 'recent' means in terms of time range, how 'limit' affects results, and what the response structure looks like. None of this is provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by US state or territory' which hints at the 'state' parameter, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the expected format beyond what the schema pattern already provides. Minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 resource ('federal disaster declarations') and scope ('by US state or territory'), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly say 'list' or 'search', and it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'fema_disaster_declarations_evidence', so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the evidence variant or other alternatives. No mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over others.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds only 'FREE beta', which hints at potential instability or limitations but is vague. It does not contradict the annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond them.

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, brief sentence that is not verbose. However, it begins with 'FREE beta', which is not the most critical information, though it does not significantly detract from the overall 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters, the description should at least clarify the required 'state' parameter and the optional 'limit'. It does neither, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and general knowledge. The tool's functionality is partially clear but incomplete for 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain what 'state' or 'limit' mean, their formats, or how they influence results. This leaves the agent without essential information to construct a valid request.

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 that the tool returns 'FEMA declaration details including programs, incident dates and declared areas', which clearly communicates the resource and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'fema_disaster_declarations_basic', relying on the name 'evidence' to imply a more detailed variant.

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 the basic version or other evidence tools. There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or conditions for selection. The only contextual hint, 'FREE beta', is not a usage guideline.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that responses state actual coverage and missing evidence, which informs the agent about output expectations and limitations beyond the structured fields.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then adds the key limitation and response expectation without wasting words.

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 high complexity — ten parameters, no output schema, and twelve distinct package IDs — the description is under-specified. It clarifies which packages are callable and response behavior, but fails to document parameter semantics, parameter selection guidance, or what a package screen actually returns.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the nine optional parameters such as area, make, year, query, or latitude/longitude. Only package_id is discoverable via its enum, so the agent must guess at parameter meaning and combinations from names alone.

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 ('Execute') and a clear resource: one of twelve individually implemented free official-data screens. It also distinguishes itself by stating that other package concepts are not callable, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like intelligence_package_directory.

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 that this tool is the execution entry point for the twelve listed package IDs, and warns against attempting other package concepts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over directory or evidence tools, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than direct.

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 establish this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those flags: the data is a pre-collected catalogue of earthquake events, and the tool supports proximity claims, not causal damage or shortage claims.

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 front-loaded sentence communicates the core action and then the most important interpretive caveat. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 three-field tool with strong safety annotations, the core call path is clear and no output schema exists to repay. However, the description omits the optional radius semantics and any hint of result limits or ordering, leaving a modest gap for correct invocation in non-default cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only gestures at latitude/longitude with 'caller-supplied coordinates.' It does not explain radius_km, its units, default behavior, or how it shapes the search.

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 first clause states a specific action ('Find ... earthquake events') on a specific resource ('collected earthquake events') near caller-supplied coordinates. This is distinct from all sibling tools, and the caveat reinforces that the tool's output is proximity information only.

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 clearly frames when the tool is relevant: whenever earthquake events near given coordinates are needed. It also adds a valuable exclusion—proximity alone should not be treated as evidence of factory damage or product shortage—though it does not name an alternative tool to use instead.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It successfully adds that results include 'original citations' and that the data source is limited to 'official' records, which clarifies what kind of evidence the user can expect. It also disclaims 'not confirmed factory disruptions,' a scope boundary that is not in the annotations. However, it does not disclose whether pagination, rate limiting, or result ordering are handled, but given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, this is acceptable.

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, compact sentence that places the core action and target first, then adds the citation detail and the clarifying exclusion. No filler words or redundant restatements of the title or annotations. It earns its place by adding the scope and a negative use-case hint in minimal space.

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 tool with no output schema and five optional parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what kind of incident or recall data will be returned, how results are ordered, how pagination works, or what values are expected for source/category. The 'selected NWS records' phrase is ambiguous, and no mention of typical use cases beyond 'search' is made. Even with annotations covering safety, an agent would need to experiment or rely on external knowledge to use this confidently.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the five parameters (limit, query, region, source, category) or suggest how they interact with the search scope. The input schema's property names and types are self-evident only at a surface level; without any description of what each parameter controls, agents will struggle to craft effective queries. This is a significant gap.

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 ('Search') and a specific set of resources ('official USGS, FEMA, FDA and selected NWS records'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings by noting 'not confirmed factory disruptions,' steering agents away from unverified supply disruption content. The phrase 'with original citations' adds further concreteness about the nature of results.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools covering the same agencies (e.g., fda_recall_search_basic, fema_disaster_declarations_basic, nws_active_alerts_basic). The only comparative hint is the negative clause 'not confirmed factory disruptions,' which addresses one adjacent use case but does not explain how this feed differs from the agency-specific search tools or when an agent should pick one over the other. No exclusions or prerequisites 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 declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the tool's nature ('proposed', 'transparent development status') and clarifies it is not a live feed, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction exists.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then clarifies a common misinterpretation. There is no wasted prose; every word contributes to understanding.

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 browse tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and nature. However, it omits any detail about parameter semantics and does not hint at the structure of results. Given the lack of an output schema and the need to compensate for zero schema description coverage, this is a notable gap, though the tool's simplicity mitigates it somewhat.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter explanation. However, it does not mention 'limit', 'query', or 'sector' at all. Though parameter names are self-explanatory, the lack of any description leaves room for ambiguity (e.g., what exactly does 'query' search? what formats for 'sector'?). This is a significant gap given zero 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 states a specific verb ('Browse') and a precise resource ('100 proposed joined-data use cases'), and explicitly differentiates from live feeds ('not 100 live feeds'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from potential alternatives, even though no specific sibling is named.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool—to browse proposed use cases—but it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for other needs. It does not cite alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them. The description adds useful context by specifying the exact scope (nine connectors) and what state is reported (last success/failure), which goes beyond the 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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It covers scope and observable outcome efficiently.

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 health probe, the description is complete: it tells the agent what is inspected and what status information is returned. The annotations cover safety and mutation concerns, and no output schema is necessary for this simple read.

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, so the schema already fully documents the input surface. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details; the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for parameter descriptions to add.

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 ('Inspect') and a precise resource: the nine free public feed connectors. It also identifies the meaningful output—last successful/failed collection—which clearly separates this health-check tool from sibling search and directory tools.

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 does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when to avoid it. The intended use is only implied from the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lighter. However, it adds only 'FREE beta' — an operational caveat, not behavioral detail such as result shape, limits, or no-match behavior. It does not contradict the 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, scannable sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the cost/access caveat. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool, though resource wording partly repeats the title.

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 three-parameter, read-only screening tool, the input requirements are clear from the schema and description. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what form the recall screening results take or how beta status affects reliability, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 0%, and the description merely restates the parameter names ('by model year, make and model') without adding formats, semantics, or examples. The names are self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 a specific resource — NHTSA recalls — and a clear filtering method (model year, make, model), which is more than a vague purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with the nhtsa_vehicle_recalls_evidence sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 contextual guidance is given on when to choose this basic tool over nhtsa_vehicle_recalls_evidence or other evidence-tier siblings. 'FREE beta' hints at access conditions, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional transparency is lower. The description adds that results include consequence, remedy, and affected-unit context, but it does not disclose beta limitations, pagination, rate limits, or data coverage expectations.

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 very short, but the opening 'FREE beta' is promotional and does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The remaining phrase is compact and readable, yet it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 tool with only three simple parameters and rich safety annotations, this is minimally adequate: the agent can infer it fetches recall evidence for a vehicle. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, output shape, and any guidance on the difference from the basic version, leaving meaningful 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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining make, model, or model_year or how they interact. The field names are self-explanatory for a recall lookup, but no additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema's names and constraints.

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 ('NHTSA recalls') and the distinguishing scope ('consequence, remedy and affected-unit context'), which separates it from the basic sibling. However, there is no explicit verb (e.g., 'search', 'retrieve', 'returns'), so the action itself 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?

The evidence/basic pairing in the sibling list plus the 'consequence, remedy and affected-unit context' phrase implies this is the detailed variant of nhtsa_vehicle_recalls_basic, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus the basic one. No exclusions or clear decision rules 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?

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that it is 'FREE beta', which signals potential instability or rate limits, and 'active' indicates current data. However, it does not describe pagination, default limits, or any quirks. Given the annotations carry the main safety burden, the description provides moderate added context but lacks depth.

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 short sentence: 'FREE beta. Active National Weather Service alerts by two-letter area/state code.' It is efficient, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no redundant filler. The leading 'FREE beta' is arguably marketing context but not harmful. Structure is clean and scannable.

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 relatively simple tool with one required parameter and safety annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is moderately complete. It explains the key filter (area) and the data source (NWS). However, it omits the 'limit' parameter entirely, does not mention the 'evidence' sibling as an alternative, and gives no information about the output format or default behavior. Given its simplicity, more could be said with minimal extra length.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely for parameter documentation. It explains the 'area' parameter as a two-letter code, which is helpful. However, it entirely omits the 'limit' parameter, its purpose, default behavior, or how it interacts with the result set. With two parameters, only one is partially described, leaving a significant gap.

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 retrieves active National Weather Service alerts filtered by a two-letter area/state code. It names the resource (alerts) and the filter (area code), making the purpose apparent. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', but the intent is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'evidence' tool, though the title and name already imply a basic/evidence distinction.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the 'evidence' variant or any alternative. There are no conditions, caveats, or selection criteria provided. An agent has no information on whether to pick this basic version or the evidence version, which is a meaningful gap given the sibling context.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the beta status and the content fields (headlines, descriptions, instructions, provenance), which are more about output content than behavior. It does not add rate limits, auth, or other behavioral traits, so it adds modest value 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 a single sentence plus a status tag, with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used the space to explain parameters.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal guidance on how to invoke it correctly. It lacks explanation of the area format, limit semantics, and what 'provenance' means in practice, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'area' parameter (expected format, e.g., two-letter state code) or the 'limit' parameter (default, behavior). The agent is left to infer from the pattern and min/max, but no semantic guidance is provided.

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 the tool provides active NWS alerts with headlines, descriptions, instructions, and provenance. This clearly conveys the purpose and differentiates from the basic sibling via the mention of provenance, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 given on when to use this evidence variant versus the basic sibling. The only extra note is 'FREE beta' status, which does not help an agent choose between 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'FREE beta' (implying an experimental/unstable service) and 'compact metadata' (a return-shape hint), but does not disclose search semantics, pagination, or result limits beyond the 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?

Two terse sentences; 'FREE beta.' is a useful caveat and the second sentence front-loads the action and scope. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description is too thin: an agent cannot know what search syntax to use, what 'compact metadata' contains, or how limit behaves. Annotations cover safety but not invocation details.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain query and limit, but it doesn't. 'Search ... datasets' only restates what the query parameter name implies, and limit is entirely ignored. There is no added meaning beyond the bare schema constraints.

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 ('Search') and a narrow resource ('New Zealand data.govt.nz datasets'), and the 'compact metadata' clause signals a lightweight result, distinguishing it from the sibling nz_open_data_search_evidence and the other countries' tools. The title's 'Basic' reinforces this.

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 explicit statement about when to use this tool versus the evidence sibling or other country search tools. The description only says what it does; 'compact metadata' is an implicit hint but not a routing instruction.

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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the free-beta status and the type of content returned, which is useful context, but it does not disclose rate limits, response shape, or other operational behavior.

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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource and the key result attributes 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?

For a tool with no output schema and an existing basic sibling, the description leaves two important gaps: the evidence-vs-basic distinction and any indication of result structure or pagination. It is minimally viable for invoking a search, but not complete enough for confident selection among sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It never explains the query parameter beyond the obvious verb 'search', and it gives no meaning for the limit parameter or its 1-25 range.

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 identifies the tool as a New Zealand dataset search and names what it returns: descriptions, resource links, formats, and provenance. However, it does not explain what the 'Evidence' variant specifically adds relative to its basic sibling.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this evidence variant over nz_open_data_search_basic, nor does it give any exclusions or alternative conditions. 'FREE beta' conveys status but not selection criteria.

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 readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'FREE beta' pricing/availability note and 'quickly' implies a lightweight fast path, which is useful context. It does not disclose rate limits, result freshness, or what 'flags' returns, so it stays at baseline.

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 fragments with the availability note front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is what creates the coverage gaps above rather than a deliberate trade-off.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation of return shape, yet 'flags' is never explained — the agent cannot tell whether this returns forms, booleans, or scores. For a tool whose entire value is its output, the description omits the essential detail.

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 coverage is 50%: cik is documented in the schema while limit (1-500) has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so the meaning and defaulting behavior of limit is left entirely unexplained; with a simple two-parameter surface this is merely adequate.

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 concrete verb ('flags') and a named resource ('recent filing forms') narrowed to corporate-action categories (tenders, offerings, proxies, material events). The purpose is clear, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling sec_recent_filings_basic or explains the 'basic' vs 'evidence' pair, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The _basic/_evidence sibling naming implies a tiering convention, but the description never says when this basic variant is preferable over sec_action_radar_evidence.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds tier/beta context and lists the returned artifacts, but says nothing about rate limiting, authentication expectations, or result caps beyond what annotations provide.

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 tight fragments with no filler, and the distinguishing content (what the signals carry) follows immediately. Leading with 'FREE beta' is marginally wasteful since it is not decision-relevant for invocation.

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 sensibly enumerates the returned fields, which is the right thing to cover. But it omits the basic-vs-evidence tier difference, the meaning/bounds of 'limit', and pagination or result-volume behavior, leaving gaps for a two-parameter retrieval 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%: 'cik' is documented in the schema, but 'limit' (max 500) has no description anywhere, and the description supplies no parameter information at all. With a low coverage ratio the description was expected to compensate, and it does not.

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?

It names a specific resource ('Form-based corporate-action signals') and enumerates the payload it returns (confidence, accession numbers, filing URLs, provenance), so an agent knows what it will get. However it uses no verb and never distinguishes itself from the sibling sec_action_radar_basic, so the tier boundary has to be inferred from the name alone.

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 statement of when to call this versus sec_action_radar_basic, no prerequisite (e.g. valid CIK format or SEC rate/identity requirements), and no exclusion conditions. 'FREE beta... Intended future paid tier' is licensing information, not usage guidance.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine context beyond them: 'FREE beta' flags pricing/maturity and 'compact latest observations' discloses the return shape (summarized, most-recent-only). It still omits rate limits, auth requirements, and error behavior.

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 with zero filler and the 'FREE beta' caveat front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves gaps that a slightly longer description could close.

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 carry return-value detail, but 'compact latest observations' is the only hint about what comes back. It also leaves the required 'cik' parameter unexplained and gives no sizing, pagination, or versioning guidance.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'cik' has a pattern but no description, and 'concept' carries its own schema description. The tool description adds no meaning to either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 'cik' field even though it implies a company-scoped search.

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 (Search) and resource (SEC XBRL facts) plus a scope qualifier (latest observations). The word 'compact' implicitly contrasts with the sibling sec_company_fact_search_evidence, but the differentiation is left for the agent to infer rather than stated explicitly.

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?

'FREE beta' signals cost/availability but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no rule for choosing this basic tool over the adjacent sec_company_fact_search_evidence sibling. The agent must guess at the selection criteria.

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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beta/pricing context and hints at richer output ('multiple observations and source provenance'), but does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or data freshness.

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 short and avoids bloat, but it front-loads a marketing note ('FREE beta') rather than the core function, and the 'Intended future paid tier' sentence does not help an agent invoke the tool.

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 and only a two-parameter search tool, the description should clarify return shape or evidence-tier meaning, but it only gestures at 'multiple observations and source provenance.' It is not complete enough for an agent to know what a call yields.

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 50%: the concept parameter has a description in the schema, but cik has none. The description does not explain either parameter or add format/meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented cik parameter.

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 the resource (SEC XBRL concept matches) and some output traits, but uses a noun phrase rather than a clear action verb and offers no sibling differentiation from sec_company_fact_search_basic. An agent can infer a search operation from the name, but the description itself is vague about the action.

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 alternatives, and no conditions for choosing the evidence tier over the basic tier. The pricing notes ('FREE beta', 'Intended future paid tier') are not usage direction.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context — 'FREE beta' (cost/pricing) and compactness for token budgeting — but says nothing about rate limits, freshness, or the shape/size of what comes back.

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 very short sentences with the pricing note front-loaded, no filler or redundancy. It is tersely efficient, though at the cost of the guidance an agent arguably needs.

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, but the tool is a simple two-parameter read whose annotations carry the safety profile. Missing sibling differentiation and the undocumented limit parameter keep it at minimum-viable rather than 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%: cik is documented, but limit (1-500) has no description in either schema or prose. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, defaults, or how limit interacts with screening, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (recent SEC filing metadata) and its character (compact, screening-oriented), so an agent knows it is a filing-listing tool. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling sec_recent_filings_evidence, leaving the basic/evidence split to be inferred.

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 phrase 'optimized for low-token agent screening' implies when to reach for it (cheap first-pass triage), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to the evidence sibling as the follow-up alternative.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it is a free beta with larger limits that may become a paid tier. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or latency behavior beyond that.

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 fragments, front-loaded with 'FREE beta' and no filler. The pricing/maturity tags are arguably non-operational, but they are cheap and come first.

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 naming the returned fields (accession data, filing URLs, retrieval provenance). Combined with the schema's cik pattern and limit bounds, an agent has enough to invoke it; the only real gap is the absent comparison to the 'basic' sibling.

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 coverage is 50%: 'cik' is documented in the schema, 'limit' has bounds but no description. The phrase 'larger limits' hints that limit is the lever for result volume, but no format or default is given. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries half the load.

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 the resource clearly (recent SEC filings) and enumerates what it returns — accession data, filing URLs, retrieval provenance — plus 'larger limits'. It implicitly separates itself from sec_recent_filings_basic via those extra fields, but never names the sibling, so the distinction requires 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?

No guidance on when to choose this over sec_recent_filings_basic, despite the 'basic'/'evidence' pairing being the central selection decision. 'FREE beta' and 'Intended future paid tier' describe pricing posture, not usage conditions.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and statefulness profile. The description adds 'stateless' (reinforcing idempotency) and 'no predictive probabilities,' which are useful behavioral clarifications beyond annotations. However, it does not describe what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or any operational caveats, so it adds only modest value.

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 with no filler, and the 'Stateless comparison' opener is front-loaded. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it is dense and jargon-heavy, which slightly hampers immediate comprehension. Overall, it earns points for 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?

Given the tool's complexity—three nested objects, no output schema, and no enum constraints—the description is far too brief. It omits any explanation of the return format, how to interpret screening results, or what 'no predictive probabilities' means for actionable output. An agent would struggle to know what to expect or how to validate the response, making this incomplete for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'factory event' (incident), 'reviewed facility-product relationship' (product), and 'dated comparable stock/price/lead-time observations' (observations), giving a high-level mapping. Yet it fails to explain individual fields like event_type, operational_impact, availability, or condition, and does not specify required vs optional inputs. For complex nested objects, this is insufficient to guide correct parameter construction.

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 performs a 'comparison' of a factory event, facility-product relationship, and dated observations, and explicitly notes it provides no predictive probabilities. This is a specific verb and resource, and the name is unique among siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools, so it misses a perfect score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions for use, and no exclusions. It implies it is for screening supply disruptions but does not state when a caller should choose this over a sibling tool or what prerequisites exist. The only hint is 'no predictive probabilities,' which suggests it is not for forecasting but does not frame usage.

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 cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuine context beyond the annotations: 'deterministic' (same input yields same signals) and 'FREE beta' (cost/availability status). It does not disclose output shape or limits on text size.

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 that front-load price/status and then the core capability. 'FREE beta' is marketing-leaning but does convey actionable availability information; nothing is redundant.

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 single-input screening tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves the return shape undefined — an agent cannot tell whether it gets booleans, matched snippets, or a score per signal category. The basic-vs-evidence distinction against its sibling is also unexplained.

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 parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema offers only min/maxLength constraints. The phrase 'in supplied tender text' implies the single 'text' input is the tender document to screen, which adds some meaning, but no format or size expectations are stated.

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 ('screening') and resource ('supplied tender text'), and enumerates the signal categories checked: set-aside, NAICS, PSC, security-clearance, dates. The 'basic' suffix plus the sibling 'tender_preflight_evidence' implies a tier distinction, though the description never explains it.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the 'basic' vs 'evidence' naming convention which tool to pick, and nothing states prerequisites or the alternative path.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds status context (free, beta, future paid tier) which is mildly useful, but it discloses nothing about limits, input expectations, or what the 'evidence categories' output actually contains.

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, so it is compact, but the second sentence is purely commercial-tier marketing rather than selection-relevant information. It is terse without being informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, yet 'evidence categories and interpretation notes' is left undefined. Combined with the undocumented input parameter, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 single 'text' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description never mentions it at all — it does not say whether text is a tender document, a query, or a URL. With low coverage and no compensating detail, the agent is left guessing what to supply.

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 recognizable activity (tender screening) and adds that it returns evidence categories and interpretation notes. However, it never explains what distinguishes it from its obvious sibling tender_preflight_basic, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone. The purpose is vague rather than specific about scope.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative despite the surrounding basic/evidence sibling pattern. 'FREE beta' and 'intended future paid tier' are commercial status statements, not usage instructions.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'FREE beta', indicating potential instability or limitations, and 'compact machine result', hinting at the output format. This adds modest context beyond the annotations, but does not elaborate on error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the free beta status and immediately states the purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description adequately conveys the core function. However, the absence of any mention of the evidence variant means an agent may not know when to choose this basic version versus the evidence tool, leaving a gap in completeness for proper decision-making.

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%, and the parameter 'identifier' has a clear description: 'Find a Tender notice ID or OCDS procurement-process ID.' The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so it relies on the schema. This meets the baseline for 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 verb 'Normalize' and the resource 'UK Find a Tender notice/OCDS procurement process', and indicates the output is a 'compact machine result'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'uk_find_tender_lookup_evidence', which likely provides more detailed results, so it misses an opportunity to distinguish its specific role.

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. The sibling list includes 'uk_find_tender_lookup_evidence', but the description does not mention when to prefer the basic version over the evidence version, or vice versa. An agent has no context to choose appropriately.

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 carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. It does add some context: 'FREE beta' flags cost/availability caveats, and 'provenance context' hints at response contents. No contradiction with annotations, but it adds only modest behavioral depth beyond the structured data.

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 compact sentence of roughly 13 words with zero filler. It front-loads the most decision-relevant fact ('FREE beta') before the core verb-resource statement, and every phrase ('tender, value, award and provenance context') carries information.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the scope of returned context (tender, value, award, provenance). The main gap is differentiating this evidence variant from its basic sibling, which is absent from the description and would help an agent choose correctly.

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% — the schema already explains that identifier is 'a Find a Tender notice ID or OCDS procurement-process ID'. The description echoes the OCDS scope ('UK Find a Tender OCDS lookup') but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('lookup') and resource ('UK Find a Tender OCDS') and enumerates the return scope ('tender, value, award and provenance context'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling variant (uk_find_tender_lookup_basic), leaving the evidence-vs-basic distinction implicit rather than stated.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions the sibling 'uk_find_tender_lookup_basic', nor does it give selection criteria such as 'use this when you need award or provenance detail' or 'use the basic variant for simple lookups'. 'FREE beta' is a status flag, not usage routing.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral notes (free/beta tier, deliberately compact output), but 'compact' is never explained — the agent cannot tell what is truncated or whether the result is complete.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the tier caveat and the core purpose — nothing wasted. It is arguably too terse for a tool with an undocumented parameter, but there is no 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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already cover safety, the description is close to adequate: it names the source, the key, and the compact nature of the return. It falls short on award-ID format and on what 'compact' excludes, which are the two things an agent would need to call and interpret it confidently.

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?

With a single required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden; it does say the tool is keyed by award ID, but gives no format, source, or example of a valid award ID (the schema only enforces 1-200 chars). This is minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 (summarizing), resource (USAspending federal award), and access key (award ID), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling us_federal_award_evidence, leaving the basic-vs-evidence split to be inferred from the naming convention.

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?

'FREE beta' implies a cost/availability consideration but the description never says when to pick this over us_federal_award_evidence or what prerequisite (a valid award ID) it needs. Usage is only implied by the tool name pattern, not stated.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the response is 'richer' and avoids 'an unbounded raw passthrough' — a vague, unquantified claim about output size rather than concrete behavior such as rate limits, latency, or beta stability.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the 'FREE beta' status, so it is not verbose. However, several sentences are marketing framing ('avoiding an unbounded raw passthrough', 'Intended future paid tier') that convey little operational value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what 'evidence' and 'provenance' return, yet it does not. Combined with zero parameter documentation and no sibling differentiation, an agent lacks what it needs to confidently call this tool over us_federal_award_basic.

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 0% and the single parameter award_id is never mentioned in the description, so no format guidance is given (e.g. USAspending award ID vs. internal ID, expected string shape). Only the parameter's self-describing name carries any meaning.

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 phrase 'Richer USAspending award evidence and provenance' names the resource (USAspending award evidence) but uses no verb describing what the tool actually does, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling us_federal_award_basic. An agent can infer a tiering from the name pattern but not from the text.

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 says nothing about when to choose this over us_federal_award_basic or the other *_evidence siblings. 'FREE beta' and 'Intended future paid tier' are pricing/commercial notes, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no selection criteria.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cost ('FREE beta') and result-size ('compact') context, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or result fields.

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 terse fragments that waste no words, though leading with 'FREE beta' rather than the search action is a slightly awkward front-loading choice.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the basic action but omits limit behavior, pagination, and any hint of what 'compact' results contain. Adequate but with clear 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 coverage is 0%, so the schema alone leaves both parameters unexplained. The description partially compensates by indicating query accepts names or UEIs and that a result-size cap (limit) exists, but it adds no syntax or format detail for either parameter.

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 (Search) and resource (USAspending recipient names/UEIs) with a scope qualifier (compact results). The 'compact results' phrasing faintly distinguishes it from us_recipient_search_evidence, but the sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. It does not point to us_recipient_search_evidence for fuller results, leaving the agent to guess between the two on its own.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive semantics, so the safety profile is handled. Beyond that the description adds only marketing framing ('FREE beta', 'future paid tier') and the vague 'authoritative API provenance' — it says nothing about latency, rate limits, result completeness guarantees, or how the evidence tier's behavior differs from basic. Annotations do not contradict the description.

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, front-loaded with the beta status. They are compact, but the content is mostly tier/billing framing rather than tool behavior, so the brevity does not buy useful information density.

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, so the description should at least sketch what is returned (recipient records with provenance fields?). Combined with zero parameter documentation and no sibling differentiation against us_recipient_search_basic, the definition is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining the query and limit parameters, and it explains neither. It never says what 'query' matches (name, UEI, DUNS, keyword), what the limit cap of 50 means, or that query is required with a 2-100 character range. The only numeric hint is the vague phrase 'larger result set', which is not tied to the limit parameter.

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 title and name establish that this is a recipient search tool with an 'evidence' tier, and the description mentions 'Larger recipient result set with authoritative API provenance.' That's a vague characterization of what makes it different from us_recipient_search_basic — it implies scale and provenance but never states the search domain (federal awards/grants recipients) or search behavior (what query matches against). The sibling us_recipient_search_basic is not named or contrasted.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance at all. The description mentions 'Intended future paid tier,' which is pricing metadata, not usage guidance, and actively leaves the agent unclear on whether this tier is appropriate to call now. The obvious alternative (us_recipient_search_basic) is never mentioned.

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