lity

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the tool's read-only nature (matching readOnlyHint), and details the content delivered (coverage, languages, access status, links). This informs the agent exactly what to expect.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose ('What Lity is'). It lists key topics efficiently. Though slightly telegraphic, it contains no unnecessary words and earns its 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (information about Lity, coverage, languages, access status, links). It does not specify output format, but for a simple informational tool, this is sufficient.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (since there are none). The description does not need to add parameter information. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that.

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 provides information about Lity, including specific topics (coverage in Spain for immigration and housing rental, languages, access status, links). The title 'About Lity' and the phrase 'Read-only' further clarify its purpose, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'submit_early_access_request'.

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 when to use the tool (when the agent needs information about Lity's coverage, languages, access status, etc.). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the existence of a sibling tool for early access requests provides context, and the tool's read-only nature is clear.

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?

Description adds the explicit consent requirement and free tier note, which supplements annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). No contradiction. However, no details on post-submission actions (e.g., email confirmation) are given.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second adds usage condition and cost note. No redundancy, every sentence 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?

Covers purpose, consent requirement, and free status. No output schema, but 6 parameters are well-documented in schema. Could mention what happens after submission, but not essential for a registration 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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds extra guidance for the 'consent' parameter ('pass consent=true to confirm'), which adds value beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool registers the user for early access (waitlist). The verb 'Register' and resource 'Lity early access' are specific. Sibling tool 'get_lity_info' is for info retrieval, so this tool's purpose is distinct.

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?

Explicitly states to call only after user explicitly agreed to share name/email and requires consent=true. Also notes free during early access. No direct comparison to sibling, but context is clear.

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