Apirro Agentic Commerce

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

The description adds behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that omitting the signal name lists all signals, and it explains the nature of the output ('what it is, why AI agents depend on it, and how to fix it'). This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the optional behavior is clearly stated in the second sentence. There is no fluff, and every word 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool produces (an explanation of the signal) and how the parameter changes the response (specific signal vs. all signals). Nothing else is needed to invoke it 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?

The schema already provides a detailed description of the 'signal' parameter (name, examples, and the omit-to-list behavior). The tool description repeats this information without adding new semantics beyond pointing out the same behavior. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Explain') and a clear resource ('one Apirro readiness signal'), and even states the scope of the explanation (what it is, why AI agents depend on it, how to fix it). It also clarifies the alternate behavior of listing all signals when the name is omitted. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like glossary, pricing, scan, or 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?

The description implies the use case: when you need an explanation of a specific readiness signal or want an overview of all signals, use this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct (glossary, pricing, scanning, searching) that the context is clear without stating them.

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 and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by stating that omitting the term returns the full glossary, and that definitions are scoped to Apirro's usage. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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?

One sentence with no fluff: states the action, lists representative terms, and explains the special behavior. The key information is front-loaded.

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 glossary tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, examples, and the omit-for-all behavior. No critical details are missing.

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 already documents the parameter with examples and the omit-for-all behavior. The description adds a broader list of example terms (MCP, UCP, AP2, etc.), which helps the agent understand valid values, slightly exceeding the schema's baseline.

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 ('Define') and a specific resource ('agentic-commerce terms as Apirro uses them'), and lists concrete terms. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_apirro_pricing or scan_agent_readiness.

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 (to define agentic-commerce terms) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. Given the sibling tools are obviously different in purpose, the usage context is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only, safe nature is established. The description adds only the word 'current,' implying live/up-to-date pricing, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response format or whether pricing data is cached or fetched live.

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 verb and resource, then lists the concrete tiers. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the agent will get back: plan names, prices, and included features. It could be more explicit about the shape of the response or whether Enterprise requires contacting sales, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 only parameter tier is fully documented with an enum and the instruction 'Return just one tier. Omit for all tiers.' The description reiterates the tier names but adds no significant meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource: Apirro's pricing plans, enumerating all four tiers. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like explain_readiness_signal or get_agentic_commerce_glossary because it is exclusively about pricing.

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 beyond the basic action. There is no statement about when to choose this tool over siblings, when to pass a tier, or any exclusions/alternatives. The context in which this tool is preferred is left completely implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds value by detailing what the scan returns and the specific signals checked (robots rules, sitemap, llms.txt, JSON-LD, MCP manifest, AP2 endpoint, product feed, policies). No contradiction exists; the description complements the annotations with operational context.

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

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

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that leads with the core action and then lists deliverables. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly long due to the enumeration of signals. No redundant phrasing or filler, so it earns a 4.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format (scores and pass/fail details) and the exact set of signals evaluated. There is no missing information an agent needs to call the tool correctly or interpret its result. The description is complete for this simple tool.

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

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

The schema has a single parameter 'url' with a clear description and example. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need 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 opens with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Apirro's free agentic-commerce readiness scan') and immediately clarifies scope ('on any public website'). It lists concrete output (scores 0-100 and per-signal pass/fail) and enumerates the underlying signals, making it unambiguous how it differs from sibling tools like explain_readiness_signal or get_agentic_commerce_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 clearly states the input is any public website, which implies the tool is for scanning external sites. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context signals (siblings) make the intended use obvious. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate that. It does contribute by specifying the return format (titles, summaries, canonical links), which is not in the annotations or output schema (none exists). It omits any mention of result ordering, empty-result behavior, or pagination, but for a simple read-only search these are minor gaps. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with the return payload. Every word is useful; there is no filler or 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 a simple schema (3 params, 1 required), no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the essential aspects: what is searched, the domain scope, and what is returned. It stops short of detailing relevance ranking or full-text vs. title-only search, but those are not critical for correct invocation. The description plus high schema coverage and annotations make the tool sufficiently 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 100% — every parameter (query, type, limit) has a clear description, including defaults and constraints. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already explains the type enum and the default limit.

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 precise resource set (Apirro's published guides, blog posts, and FAQs), and the topical scope (agentic commerce, AI visibility, GEO/AEO, MCP, UCP, AP2). It also lists the return payload (titles, summaries, canonical links), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_apirro_pricing or get_agentic_commerce_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 clearly implies the tool is for general search across Apirro's content, and the siblings are obviously different in purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it give exclusions (e.g., 'for a specific glossary entry, use get_agentic_commerce_glossary'). Usage is inferred from context rather than spelled out.

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