OpenDraft

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the bare action of registering. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, email verification, password requirements, or what happens on duplicate registration. The full burden is on the description, and it fails to add 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 concise sentence that earns its place with a clear verb-object structure. It avoids fluff and is appropriately front-loaded, focusing on the essential action.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success indicators, error conditions, or any additional context (e.g., whether the account is immediately active). The description is minimal and leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 mention any parameters. While the parameter names (email, password, username) are self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about constraints, formats, or interdependencies. The low coverage requires description compensation, which is absent.

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 'Register a new user account' uses a specific verb ('register') and resource ('user account'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'sign_in' (which handles authentication for existing users), making it obvious this tool is for new account creation.

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 like 'sign_in'. The description is purely a statement of function with no context about prerequisites, common scenarios, 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that auth is required, but does not disclose what the tool actually does upon invocation (e.g., creates a draft or live listing), side effects, validations, idempotency, or the return format. This is insufficient for a creation/mutation tool.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being minimally useful. A single sentence does not provide the structure needed to guide an agent, though it is not verbose or poorly arranged.

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 (8 parameters, 4 required, enums, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any explanation of required fields, expected behaviors, or what happens after creation, making it inadequate 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 input schema has 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. No parameter names, purposes, or constraints are explained, leaving the agent to rely solely on the bare schema types and enums without any semantics.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('a new app for sale'), which conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish create_listing from siblings like publish_listing or deploy_listing, leaving ambiguity about whether this creates a draft or a live listing.

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 beyond 'Requires auth' is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description gives no context for deciding between create_listing and publish_listing or other 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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that authentication and a personal access token are required, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, failure modes, or what happens on success, which for a deployment action could be relevant.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and then adds the key prerequisite. Every word contributes meaning, with 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 3-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and a prerequisite but omits any information about the result of the deployment, side effects, or how it compares to related tools. It is adequate for simple use but lacks details that could help an agent anticipate outcomes.

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 only 33%. The description partially compensates by mapping 'a listing's source code' to listing_id, 'Netlify or Vercel' to the platform enum, and explicitly referencing the token. Yet it doesn't explain the exact meaning of listing_id beyond being the listing, and platform values are not elaborated, leaving some 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 clearly states the action: 'Deploy a listing's source code to Netlify or Vercel.' It identifies a specific verb and resource, and the target platforms give it specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like publish_listing, which could also involve deploying but likely means publishing to the marketplace.

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 this tool (when you need to deploy a listing's source code to Netlify or Vercel) and mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires auth and a personal access token.' It does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of offering clear guidance on choosing this tool over siblings.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by stating the key is 'persistent' and has an 'od_' prefix, which are useful traits. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., key creation count limits), security implications (e.g., confidentiality of the key), or whether the key is returned in the response. Thus it provides some but not enough 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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and then adds a specific detail. It is efficient, but its brevity contributes to missing information, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 2 parameters (one required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of 'name' or the meaning of 'scopes,' nor does it describe what the response contains or how to use the generated key. This is a minimal viable description at best, but for an API-key generation tool with auth and scopes, it is contextually incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter ('name' or 'scopes'). The descriptions for these parameters are not included, and the tool description offers no clues about what 'name' represents (e.g., a label for the key) or how 'scopes' controls permissions. This leaves the agent without any semantic guidance.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Generate a persistent API key (od_ prefix).' The verb 'generate' plus the resource 'API key' makes the purpose explicit. It also adds a distinguishing detail (the 'od_' prefix) that sets it apart from sibling tools like create_account or sign_in, which are not about API key generation.

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 mentions 'Requires auth' as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of scenarios like creating keys for different environments or integrating with other tools. It only gives a condition, not usage 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: the tool returns a listing in 'pending' status with a source code ZIP and requires write-scope auth. This adds meaningful context, though it omits potential side effects or rate limits.

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 core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: the first defines the action, the second explains the output and auth requirement. No redundant 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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, output format (pending listing with ZIP), and auth scope. It lacks details on how the generated listing integrates with sibling tools, but given the simplicity, it is 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?

The schema already describes prompt and price, while category has only an enum with no description. The tool description does not add additional parameter context beyond reinforcing 'prompt', so it fails to compensate for the missing category explanation. Schema coverage is 67%, so the baseline is 3.

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: generate a full React template app from a text prompt. It also describes the output (a pending listing with source code ZIP), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on listing creation, deployment, or publishing.

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 is used to generate template apps from prompts, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The auth requirement is a precondition, 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential errors, or response format. It only restates the tool's purpose, offering minimal additional 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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action without any unnecessary 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'full details' encompasses, what the response contains, or any error conditions, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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

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

The schema has a single required parameter, bounty_id, with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'specific bounty' but does not clarify the parameter's format, source, or usage, adding little beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves full details for a specific bounty, using a specific verb and resource. It is semantically distinct from list_bounties, though it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like get_listing.

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. The description simply states the function without mentioning context, exclusions, or when a different 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'View,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. The lack of detail beyond the action is minimal.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool, with no wasted words. However, the brevity sacrifices useful detail, preventing a higher score.

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 a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not describe the return structure (e.g., profile fields or listing format), error conditions, or any prerequisite steps. Given no annotations, the description does insufficient work to help the agent understand invocation behavior in 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and one parameter, 'username'. The description adds no explicit explanation of the parameter, its format, or its required semantics. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving the agent to guess what 'username' refers to in context.

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 'View a builder's full profile and listings' uses a clear verb ('View') and resource ('builder's full profile and listings'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_builders (which searches) and get_listing (which likely gets a single listing). It communicates the tool's scope effectively, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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

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

The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternative tools. Since siblings include search_builders and get_listing, the agent must infer when to use this tool versus those, which is a clear gap.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent the kind of data returned (what agents can't find) but omits operational details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, time ranges, or whether the result is sorted or paginated. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 only two short sentences, with no redundant information. Every word adds value: the first sentence defines the core function, and the second suggests a primary use case. This is exemplary 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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide a fuller picture of what the agent will receive and any limitations. It only hints at the content (unmet searches) but does not explain the response format, whether 'limit' affects results, or any other constraints. The tool is simple, but the description still underspecifies 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?

The input schema has one parameter ('limit') with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention 'limit' at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what it controls, its default value, or its acceptable range. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'See what agents are searching for but can't find' identifies a specific resource (unmet search queries) and purpose (discovering gaps). It distinguishes from siblings like get_trending or search_listings by focusing on failed searches, but the verb 'see' is less explicit than 'list' or 'get' and does not mention output type.

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 'Great for discovering unmet market needs' provides a clear use case, telling the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it does not reach the top score.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what information is returned (seller profile, reviews, decision factors), which is helpful, but it does not mention potential errors, authentication needs, or that it is a safe read operation. It adds some value beyond the schema 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and key content without wasted words. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately conveys the scope and key return elements. It could mention error cases or the absence of side effects, but it is largely complete for typical 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 schema has one parameter (listing_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the parameter, but the parameter's name and type make its semantics obvious. The description's 'a listing' confirms the usage but adds little beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get full details') and the resource ('a listing'), and distinguishes it from search/listing tools by specifying the content includes seller profile, reviews, and decision factors. This is specific and useful.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single listing's complete details based on the listing_id, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like search_listings or get_reviews, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires auth', which is a real behavioral trait, but it does not explain what 'active' means, whether the tool returns all offers regardless of status, or what the response format looks like. This ambiguity could mislead an agent into expecting only non-terminal offers when the status parameter allows 'all'. Minimal disclosure beyond the auth requirement.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately mention the auth requirement. Every word is useful, and there is no redundant information. It meets the standard for appropriately sized, well-structured text.

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, but it lacks an output schema, so the description should clarify return values, default behavior, or pagination. It does not. Additionally, the 'active' term is left undefined, and the status parameter's role is not explained. For a read tool that returns a list of offers, the description is incomplete and could mislead.

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 lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter or how 'status' interacts with 'active'. The enum values are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description's use of 'active' conflicts with the status enum (e.g., 'all'). The description adds no meaningful semantic value to the parameters; it may even cause confusion.

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 read operation for the user's own offers/bids ('View your active offers/bids'), using the verb 'view' and the resource 'offers/bids'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like place_offer and withdraw_offer, which are mutations. However, the term 'active' creates ambiguity because the status parameter accepts 'all', and it's unclear whether 'active' means non-terminal statuses or is just a loose synonym for 'existing'.

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 states the target audience (your offers) and the auth requirement, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the tool is self-explanatory among siblings as the primary 'view my offers' operation. Thus the usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly spelled out.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a basic read operation ('Get reviews and ratings') without mentioning safety, required permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what data is returned, how limit behaves, or any other behavioral details necessary for correct invocation. The tool appears simple, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning for either parameter (listing_id or limit). The term 'for a listing' implicitly maps to listing_id, but limit is unexplained, leaving the agent to guess its purpose 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 clearly states the action (get) and resource (reviews and ratings for a listing), and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like get_listing or get_bounty. It is specific enough to avoid ambiguity.

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, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The user is left to infer usage solely from the tool 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' and does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, auth requirements, or any other behavioral traits, leaving a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action ('Get') and the resources, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and detailed parameter info, the description is far too minimal to be complete. It does not explain what 'market intelligence' includes, how results are ordered, or how to interpret the response, making it inadequate for a tool with this little structured metadata.

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 mention the 'limit' parameter or its meaning. The description adds no value beyond the bare schema information, so the agent must guess how to use the parameter correctly.

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 trending listings, hot bounties, and market intelligence, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_listing and get_bounty by adding the 'trending' and 'hot' modifiers, though 'market intelligence' is somewhat vague.

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. No context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to infer when 'trending' data is needed.

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

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

The description adds the requirement of authentication and the non-redirect behavior, which are useful beyond any annotations (none provided). However, it does not disclose whether this operation has side effects, what happens with invalid inputs, or the nature of the returned payment link. Given the absence of annotations, the description only partially fulfills the transparency burden.

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 concise and front-loaded, with only two sentences that immediately convey purpose and auth requirement. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting parameter semantics, so while it is structurally efficient, it does not fully earn its place given the information it should carry.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description is far too minimal to be complete. It fails to explain the required listing_id or the optional offer_id, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool. The tool's simplicity does not excuse the missing parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either 'listing_id' or 'offer_id.' It provides no meaning beyond the schema's type and requiredness, leaving the agent without insight into what these strings represent or how they relate to the checkout process. 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a payment link without browser redirects.' It specifies a concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('payment link'), and the phrase 'without browser redirects' distinguishes it from browser-based checkout alternatives among the sibling 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like initiate_purchase or quick_purchase. The only contextual hint is 'without browser redirects,' which is more about purpose than usage. It does not provide exclusions, prerequisites beyond auth, or mention of alternative 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Requires auth', which is a modest precondition. It does not explain side effects (e.g., initiating a payment, creating a Stripe session, charging the user), return format, or any redirect behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation-like purchase tool.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that deliver clear information without any filler. The key action is front-loaded and the auth note is a useful exception. 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?

The tool is a purchase initiation but the description lacks essential context. It does not disclose what the Stripe checkout entails, whether it returns a URL or session ID, or any error conditions. With no output schema, the agent has no idea what the response looks like. The single param is trivial, but the behavioral and return context are incomplete.

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 one parameter (listing_id) with zero description coverage. The description loosely connects it to 'a listing' but does not explain how to obtain it, its format, or its role in the checkout process. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (Start Stripe checkout) and the target (a listing). It implies a payment-related operation for a specific listing. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like headless_checkout or quick_purchase, which could also relate to checkout/purchase flows.

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. It only mentions that authentication is required, which is a prerequisite but not usage context. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred over headless_checkout or quick_purchase.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Browse' indicates a read-only operation and 'open' conveys the filtering status, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. It adds some context beyond the name but not enough for a listing tool.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the appositive clarifies what bounties are. 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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It fails to explain how limit and category alter results, what the response looks like, or how this fits into the broader workflow. While the tool is simple, critical usage 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention 'limit' or 'category' or their effects. The enum for category is unexplained, forcing the agent to guess. The description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already shows.

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

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Browse' and identifies the resource as 'open bounties' with the clarifying appositive 'paid project requests from buyers.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bounty (specific bounty) and submit_to_bounty (action), even though it does not name them 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?

The description provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance or mention of alternative tools. It implies usage through its purpose but does not state when to choose this over search_listings or get_bounty, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return includes counts, which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or potential errors. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is completely focused and earns its place in the tool definition.

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

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

For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description successfully conveys the core return value (categories with counts). It does not specify output format or edge cases, but the simplicity of the tool makes this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is already fully covered. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed.

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 ('Get') on a specific resource ('listing categories') with a meaningful output detail ('with counts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_listing or search_listings.

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 alternatives or when-to-use guidance are provided. However, the tool is a simple zero-parameter list operation, so usage context is implied by its purpose. This is borderline but meets the 'implied usage' criterion for a 3.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important constraint (min 25%) and auth requirement, but omits consequences like offer state, counter-offer possibilities, or side effects. Minimal transparency for a tool that creates a binding financial action.

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 containing exactly the essential information: action, target, constraint, and auth. 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?

Given the sparse schema, missing annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to supply more context. It covers basic purpose and constraints but leaves out return behavior, failure modes, offer lifecycle, and the optional message parameter. Incomplete for a tool in an offer-management 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%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds the min 25% rule, which relates to offer_amount, but it never names or explains listing_id, offer_amount, or message. The description fails to impart meaningful meaning for 3 parameters.

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 ('Place') and resource ('bid/offer on a listing'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_listing or withdraw_offer. It unambiguously states the action and target.

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 by stating the action and includes practical constraints (min 25% of listing price, requires auth), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like respond_to_counter or get_my_offers. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that auth is required and states the side effect of public visibility. However, it omits details like what happens if the listing is already live, listing status prerequisites, or error behaviors. This is average but not comprehensive.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and effect. No redundant or unnecessary words; every phrase adds 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core behavior, requirement (auth), and effect. No output schema exists, so omitting return details is acceptable. It lacks some edge-case explanation, but overall is suitably complete for its 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 has one parameter with no description, and the description adds meaning by specifying the listing must be one you own. This directly informs the listing_id parameter's purpose and constraint, going beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 action: setting a listing to 'live' status, with the effect of making it publicly visible. It specifies the resource (listing) and distinguishes from siblings like create_listing or deploy_listing by focusing on the status transition.

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

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

It provides clear context for when to use: when you own a listing and want to make it live. It implies prerequisites (ownership, auth) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use. Still, the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral side effects: it auto-creates an account, generates an API key, and returns a payment link. This is meaningful transparency, though it omits details about reversibility, error handling, or whether payment is processed immediately.

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 that immediately states the core purpose, followed by a concise list of actions. There is no fluff or redundant 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 tool with no output schema, the description does state the return (a payment link) and side effects, which is helpful. However, it lacks parameter explanations, error cases, and comparison with sibling tools, leaving gaps for fully informed 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 four parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the roles of email, listing_id, message, or offer_amount. It vaguely implies email is for account creation and listing_id is for purchase, but provides no explicit parameter-level guidance.

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 ('One-call frictionless purchase') and lists concrete behaviors (auto-creates account, generates API key, returns payment link), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools by emphasizing 'No onboarding required.'

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (when a single-call purchase without prior account setup is desired), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, limiting exclusionary 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but only mentions 'Requires auth.' It does not disclose what the webhook registration does, whether it validates the URL, how the subscription is managed, or what happens on duplicates/updates. This is a significant transparency gap for a state-changing subscription tool.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the auth requirement is a discrete, useful addendum. 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?

The tool has three parameters, including an undocumented nested 'filters' object, no output schema, and no annotations. A two-sentence description is insufficient to convey webhook registration behavior, filter semantics, or expected response, making it incomplete for reliable 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 clarify parameters. 'via webhook' hints at 'url' and 'real-time events' hints at 'events', but the 'filters' object is entirely unexplained, leaving a required structural element 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 uses a specific verb ('Subscribe') and resource ('real-time events via webhook'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_listing or list_bounties. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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

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

The description provides clear context (use for real-time event subscriptions) and an explicit prerequisite (requires auth), but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. It is more than implied, yet lacks explicit when-not 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that auth is required and gives the high-level actions, but does not disclose side effects, whether actions are transactional, or what happens to the offer on accept/reject/counter. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with two clauses, front-loading the core action and providing the auth requirement. Every word contributes, and there is no redundant explanation or filler.

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

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

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits parameter details, return behavior, side effects, and any guidance on the counter workflow, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not define new_amount, message, or explicitly map offer_id to the target offer. The action enum values are partially reflected in the verb list, but no additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema names.

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 specific verbs ('Accept, reject, or counter') and identifies the exact resource ('a seller's counter-offer'), making the tool's function immediately clear. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'place_offer' (initial offers) and 'withdraw_offer' (withdrawing offers).

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

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

The action verbs imply the tool is used when responding to a seller's counter-offer, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like place_offer or withdraw_offer. 'Requires auth' is a necessary prerequisite but not a usage guideline or exclusion.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but doesn't. It doesn't mention return format, pagination, sorting criteria, authentication requirements, or any side effects. 'Search' implies read-only, but that's an inference, not a stated guarantee.

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, efficiently worded sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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, but the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation leaves significant gaps. The description fails to convey response structure, result ordering, or how 'top' is determined, making it under-specified for reliable agent 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 partially does by linking 'by username' to the query parameter and 'browse top' to omitting query. However, it never explicitly names the parameters or explains the limit parameter, leaving the agent to infer 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search for builders by username or browse top builders.' It specifies the resource (builders) and the two modes of operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_listings which target a different entity.

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 context (search vs browse) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it explain parameter-dependent behavior. The two modes are mentioned but not tied directly to parameters.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: 'If no results match, your search is logged as a demand signal.' However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether results are paginated, what the response contains, or any authentication requirements. The disclosure is useful but incomplete, hence a mid-range score.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action ('Search the OpenDraft marketplace...') followed by a concise note on side effects. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or vague wording. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the two-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination, how the filters interact, or even that it returns a list of matching listings. The demand signal note adds some context, but the overall description is inadequate for a search tool with this 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not. The five parameters (limit, query, category, max_price, tech_stack, completeness) are only named, with enums for two, but no semantics are provided. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, leaving the agent to guess how filters combine and what input is expected.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search the OpenDraft marketplace for AI-built apps.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('marketplace'), and the additional note about demand signals distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_builders and get_listing. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_listing, get_trending, or search_builders. The demand signal note hints at a specific scenario, but it does not clarify when to prefer this tool over others. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without usage 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Sign in and get an access token' without mentioning error behavior, token expiration, rate limits, or security considerations. This is insufficient for a mutation-like action.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It earns its place entirely.

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 an authentication tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't specify the response format, success/failure conditions, or any special requirements. The agent may be left uncertain about the token structure or error handling.

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 includes two required string parameters (email, password), but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain that these are the user credentials or how they are used. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, 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 clearly states the action ('Sign in') and the outcome ('get an access token'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_account (registration) and generate_api_key (API key generation). However, it is somewhat generic and doesn't mention the authentication context or token type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having an account), nor does it contrast with create_account or generate_api_key. Usage is only implied by the tool 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Requires auth' but doesn't describe side effects, whether the submission is idempotent, or any constraints on the listing/bounty state. Mutation behavior is unstated.

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 concise, two sentences, with no fluff. The action is front-loaded, 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial operational context such as prerequisites, side effects, and expected outcome, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the 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%, but the description doesn't elaborate on parameters. The mapping of bounty_id and listing_id is inferable from the tool name, but message is unexplained and no parameter details are given. The description fails to 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 clearly identifies the action (submit), the object (listing), and the target (bounty), distinguishing it from sibling tools like place_offer or get_bounty. It is specific and unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like place_offer or get_bounty. It only states the action and auth requirement, leaving usage context entirely implied. 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires auth', which is useful, and the state condition, but it does not explain what happens after withdrawal, error cases (e.g., invalid state), or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and the key prerequisite. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose and a state condition. However, it lacks information about expected responses, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., attempting to withdraw an already-accepted offer), making it minimally complete but not fully robust.

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 mention the offer_id parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no context about the format, source, or how to obtain the ID, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the action ('Withdraw') and the specific resource ('a pending or countered offer'), distinguishing it from siblings like place_offer, respond_to_counter, and get_my_offers. The scope ('pending or countered') adds precision about which offers qualify.

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 implies the tool should be used when an offer is in a pending or countered state, and notes the auth requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it (e.g., for accepted offers), so it falls short of a 5.

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