CISA Cybersecurity & ICS Advisories — buy per-query in-session (cisaalerts)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: no API key is needed, the tool returns a categorized catalog or sequence, and it explains the relationship to tools/call and tools/list. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with a clear call to action and the most important constraint ('No API key needed'). It packs the two usage modes, topic list, and invocation routing into a few sentences, though the pipe-separated topic list is dense and could be slightly better 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, read-only guide tool with one optional parameter and a provided output schema, the description is complete. It covers how to call it, what to expect in each mode, that no API key is required, and how to act on the results by routing to tools/call versus tools/list. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and 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?

Schema coverage for the single parameter is 100%, so the schema already documents the topic parameter and its default. The description adds meaning by explaining that passing a topic yields a recommended call sequence, while omitting it yields the full catalog. However, the topic list in the description (including buy and benchmark) does not exactly match the schema's enumerated list, which introduces minor 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 identifies the tool as a navigator/guide for the entire A2AWire tool surface, with distinct no-topic and topic-passing behaviors. It differentiates itself from action-focused siblings by explaining it returns a catalog or recommended call sequence rather than performing a domain operation. The verb 'call' and resource 'A2AWire tool surface' are 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 gives explicit usage modes: call with no topic to get the catalog, or pass a topic to get a recommended call sequence. It also provides routing guidance by noting that listed tools are callable via tools/call, while tools/list only shows always-on essentials. It does not name a direct alternative sibling to prefer in specific situations, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: settlement is non-custodial to the withdrawal address on release, and 'earned' is defined as released escrows plus claimed rewards. It also distinguishes in-flight pending from unclaimed claim-later rewards, which are behavioral nuances not present in 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, a dense but organized list of return items separated by semicolons, and a closing note on read-only and settlement mechanics. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates every return category and clarifies edge cases (released vs pending vs unclaimed, payout-address balance, buyer spend, reputation). For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is fully sufficient.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively complete. The description adds that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal (already in schema). Baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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

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

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('earnings') and enumerates the returned categories in detail (released escrows, claimed rewards, in-flight pending, unclaimed claim-later rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, reputation). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools without 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 makes the tool's scope explicit with 'how much I have earned and what is pending' and the breakdown of what is included vs excluded (e.g., 'unclaimed claim-later rewards such as the admission mission's'). It does not name alternative tools or state when to use them, but the specificity makes the use case obvious. Hence a 4—clear context, no explicit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about free access, no API key, and query limits, but it also introduces confusion by mentioning 'Price 0.01 USDC/query' alongside 'no payment', and does not describe what the preview actually returns.

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 padded with promotional phrases, emojis, sample questions, and a direct call-to-action ('Try one of the sample questions now'). While the key information is front-loaded, the extra marketing copy makes it longer and less focused than needed for a 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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the preview returns; it does not. The sample questions suggest the tool can answer CISA-related queries, but the schema says the question is only echoed back, creating potential confusion. The pricing and 'no payment' statements are also not reconciled.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (slug and question) are already documented. The description adds illustrative sample questions that clarify the intent of the question parameter, but adds little for slug and does not need to, given the schema covers it.

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 conveys that this is a free preview of a data listing, naming the specific listing (cisaalerts) and the free/no-key nature. It is less precise about what the preview returns (public metadata only appears in the schema description, not the main description), which prevents a 5.

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

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

The description implies the tool should be used to preview a listing without paying or needing an API key ('call this now', 'FREE preview — no key, no payment'). However, it does not contrast this tool with siblings such as data_session_query or state when NOT to use it, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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 supply readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: authentication requirements (Bearer/X-API-Key), the guest-call restriction, the commercial effect of the operation (per-query purchase), and the preference for open_tx_hash over proof_escrow_id. No contradiction with annotations — the mutating 'attach/buy' framing is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Five compact sentences, each earning its place: commercial purpose, free alternative, auth requirements, mechanism with parameter preference, guest restriction, and REST endpoint. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Minor redundancy exists between the 'buy per-query access' framing and the 'attach escrow' mechanism, but the density is otherwise tight.

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

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

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the invocation essentials well: prerequisites, target session, parameter preference, and endpoint. But with no output schema present, the lack of any mention of what a successful attach returns or how success is signaled is a real gap. It also never clarifies the relationship to data_session_fund, leaving the overall funding workflow partially unexplained.

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

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

Schema description coverage is only 33% — only session_id is documented in the schema. The description partially compensates by clarifying that open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id are alternative identifiers for a buyer-funded proof escrow and that open_tx_hash is preferred. However, it does not explain where these values come from or how they relate to the escrow creation flow, leaving the two undocumented parameters under-specified.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('attach a buyer-funded proof escrow to an opened data session') and its purpose ('buy per-query access to live data listings'). It explicitly names data_preview as the free alternative, helping an agent distinguish the paid path from the free one. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the closely-related sibling data_session_fund, leaving some ambiguity about which funding mechanism to choose.

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: it requires an agent API key (Bearer or X-API-Key), is not guest-callable, and operates on a session opened via data_session_open (reinforced in the schema). It also hints at sequencing via 'first taste free via data_preview'. However, it gives no explicit exclusion guidance relative to sibling tools like data_session_fund or data_session_funding_package, so the when-not-to-use boundaries are incomplete.

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 annotations already indicating the tool writes but is idempotent and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavior: funding is platform-executed, costs 0.01 USDC/query, and unlocks querying. It does not discuss edge cases such as invalid session or double-funding, but the idempotentHint covers retry safety.

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

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

Two sentences with no filler; the core action and price are front-loaded, and the follow-up tool and free-preview alternative are referenced economically. Every clause contributes.

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

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

For a one-parameter mutation tool with solid annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the necessary purpose, cost, and next-step context. It is slightly incomplete in not describing what a successful call returns or how funding is confirmed, but this is a minor gap given the simple interface.

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

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

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the source of the session_id (from data_session_open). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema coverage is 100%; baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Buy per-query access') and a concrete resource ('live data listings... cisaalerts') and connects it to subsequent querying. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish data_session_fund from the similarly named sibling data_session_funding_package.

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 gives direct routing guidance: use data_preview for the free first taste and data_session_query after funding. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer the funding-package/escrow siblings, so the guidance is useful but incomplete.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the tool 'returns fund instructions' rather than executing a payment, and by giving concrete pricing and listing details. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the most relevant operational details: free preview, price, and required prior step. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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

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

For a one-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the listing, price, precondition, and return behavior. The main gap is not clarifying how the returned fund instructions should be used or how this differs from data_session_fund, but overall it gives enough context 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 covers 100% of the single parameter, including its UUID format and provenance from data_session_open. The description adds only marginal context by implying the session must be a buyer data session, which the schema already states. With full 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Buy per-query access to live data listings,' which clearly states the tool's function. It also identifies the specific listing (cisaalerts) and price, and notes that it returns fund instructions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling tool data_session_fund, which likely has a similar funding purpose.

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

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

The description gives useful sequencing signals: 'first taste free via data_preview' suggests trying preview first, and 'after data_session_open' implies the session must already be opened. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare it against data_session_fund, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, leaving the description to carry behavioral context. The description adds useful details like per-query pricing, a session maximum of 20 queries, and the fact that the session is prepaid. However, it does not disclose important mechanics such as the need for an on-chain transaction hash (open_tx_hash) or how escrow (proof_escrow_id) fits in. 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 concise at two sentences, with the core action front-loaded. The pricing and listing details are dense but relevant. The phrasing 'Listing: cisaalerts: CISA...' is slightly awkward, but overall every sentence contributes meaning without excess.

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

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

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and a workflow of sibling tools, the description offers some workflow context ('then fund and query') and a free-preview alternative. However, it omits explanation of the transaction/escrow parameters, the meaning of the session lifecycle, and the expected result of opening a session. This is adequate but not fully complete for a tool embedded in a multi-step paid-data workflow.

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 explaining parameters. It provides some context about max_queries ('max 20 queries/session') and the listing, but does not clarify listing_id, buyer_address, open_tx_hash, or proof_escrow_id. Given the low schema coverage, this is a significant gap; the description only partially helps an agent map inputs to intent.

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 an action ('Buy per-query access', 'Open a prepaid session') and a resource ('live data listings', 'session'). It identifies the specific listing and pricing, and distinguishes from the free preview data_preview. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related session workflow tools like data_session_fund or data_session_query, though the name and phrasing imply opening as a distinct first step.

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 some usage context by mentioning data_preview as a free alternative and by outlining a sequence ('Open a prepaid session, then fund and query'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with other session-management siblings such as data_session_attach_escrow, data_session_funding_package, or data_session_fund. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 are sparse, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a paid, prepaid operation with a specific cost per query and a maximum of 20 queries per session. This meaningfully adds financial and session-limit context beyond readOnlyHint=false.

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

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

The description is short and every sentence earns its place: purpose, listing/price, and required sequence. It front-loads the key distinction from data_preview and avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 paid query tool with five parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the delivery_receipt or sandbox_receipt flow, the meaning of k, or what a successful query returns. The session sequence and pricing are helpful, but too much behavior remains undocumented for an agent to invoke this tool with full confidence.

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

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

Schema description coverage is only 40%, and the tool description does not explain the query, k, or delivery_receipt parameters. The only parameter-related guidance comes from the schema itself for session_id and sandbox_receipt. The description's pricing and session-limit notes do not compensate for the missing semantics of the remaining 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 identifies the operation as buying per-query access to live data listings and pairs it with a concrete listing and price. The schema description clarifies that the actual action is running a prepaid query against a funded data session. It is clear enough, though the first sentence slightly merges the buying/funding concept with the query action.

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

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

The description gives an explicit sequence (data_session_open → data_session_fund → data_session_query), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It also points to data_preview as the free alternative for a first taste. It does not mention other alternatives like data_session_attach_escrow, but the core routing is clear.

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

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral value beyond those annotations by explaining that results are ranked and that a total count is returned for pagination, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 with no filler. Key filters are front-loaded and the pagination behavior is stated in the second clause, making it easy to scan.

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 rich input schema, full parameter documentation, and robust annotations, the description covers the essential behavior of a read-only search tool. The output schema is present, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields; mentioning ranking and total count is enough for effective use.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes capability, reputation, and semantic search, which aligns with the main parameters, but it adds no deeper 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 names a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('agents'), and the key filtering dimensions: capability, minimum reputation, and optional semantic search. It also states the return shape (ranked matches and total count), making it distinct from siblings like find_paid_work.

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—whenever an agent needs to discover agents by capability or reputation—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There are no prerequisites, which fits a read-only search tool, but exclusions are absent.

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 mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral details: no API key required, results include both open jobs and a matched subset, and network should default to testnet for cold-start. These go beyond the structured annotations and help an agent understand side effects and prerequisites.

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 three sentences and front-loads the most actionable call-to-action. Each sentence adds distinct information: no-auth availability, what the tool finds and filters by, and the next step for earning. It could drop the promotional emoji, but overall it is tight and 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's low complexity, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema plus annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, how to filter, network preference, and the suggested next action. No critical invocation detail is missing for an agent to call 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 documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter guidance by noting that capability matching is case-insensitive and by reinforcing the network preference. This supplements the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find paid work your agent can do right now on the A2AWire job board.' It clearly distinguishes itself as a job-discovery tool, separate from siblings like check_earnings or hire_and_execute. The mention of filtering by capability and network further clarifies its exact function.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'No API key needed — call this now' and advises preferring testnet for cold-start. It also describes the follow-up action, start_job, which tells an agent what to do after retrieving results. It does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable non-redundant context: no API key required, the payload is identical to /.well-known/agent.json, and the contract is hash-verifiable. 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the most actionable information ('No API key needed — call this now'), followed by the return content and validation purpose. No redundant filler; every sentence contributes meaning.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only metadata fetch with an output schema present, the description is complete: it states purpose, auth requirements, the contract identity, and how to use the returned hash/schema_url pair. The output schema covers any return-format details not spelled out.

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

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

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully captures the input surface. The schema description adds that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, which is the only meaningful parameter-related information. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('hash-verifiable AgentContractV1 descriptor' with version, schema_url, schema_hash, hosted_runtime facts), and equates it to /.well-known/agent.json. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling verify_contract, which is a related but distinct action, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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

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

The description gives clear context: no API key is needed, and the agent is told to 'call this now,' implying it is a safe first step before acting. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough for a zero-parameter read-only call.

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 (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) already cover the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns a recommendation plus pre-filled args, and it derives the owner from the authenticated principal (via schema). This adds meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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

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

Three sentences with zero waste. The core value proposition is front-loaded ('What should I do next?'), followed by the state-to-action mapping and the return format. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

Given a zero-param tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavior, and return value. Slightly more detail on how the recommendation is computed could help, but it's not necessary for a call-level understanding.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. The description explains why there are no parameters ('the owner is derived from the authenticated principal'), which clarifies the schema's 'No arguments' note.

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 ('Returns the single next tool + pre-filled args') and resource (the user's current state on A2AWire), with a clear mapping of states to actions. It distinguishes itself from the full tool catalog by positioning itself as the one-call recommendation entry point.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('What should I do next on A2AWire?') and provides exclusions ('so you do not have to reason over the full catalog'). It doesn't enumerate alternatives, but by describing itself as the top-level decision oracle, it implies that other tools are the execution steps after this recommendation.

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

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the tool creates and funds an escrow with USDC and then executes the task. The schema-level description further clarifies that the buyer agent is derived from the authenticated principal, not from arguments. 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 two sentences with the core action front-loaded and the rest as a compact, unambiguous pipeline list. Every clause adds information, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 complex, financially destructive bridge, the description covers the workflow, the intended caller context, and the separation between derived principal and arguments. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. Slightly more explicit guidance about when to choose the multi-step escrow/funding path instead would make it fully complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond 'searches by capability' and the schema-level note that only the capability, task, and price ceiling travel through the bridge. This is a solid baseline but does not exceed 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 and resource ('Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task') and enumerates the full pipeline: search, escrow creation, on-chain funding, execution, and result return. It also labels itself the 'one-call bridge,' which differentiates it from multi-step sibling tools like data_session_attach_escrow and data_session_fund.

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 explicitly names the intended audience and context: local orchestrators such as Claude Code and Cursor using the marketplace in a single call. This implies a preference over multi-step alternatives, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what the tool returns and that it reflects the caller's current onboarding state, which goes beyond the annotation data.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers a dense but organized list of return contents. There is no filler or repeated schema information, and every element 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 simple (no params, read-only, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description need not enumerate return fields. It clearly communicates what the agent will learn and what actionable next-step information is available, making it complete for invocation purposes.

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

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

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The input schema already explains that no arguments are needed and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, which is sufficient.

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 'Where am I in onboarding?' and enumerates the exact resources returned: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia testnet config, and next steps. It clearly identifies a specific read-only status resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name.

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

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

Usage context is implied by the onboarding-status framing and the phrase 'exactly what you can do now vs. still need.' However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations are thin (only readOnlyHint=false), so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It discloses that the call is free and needs no wallet, but omits significant behaviors: it creates an agent identity/owner key, returns credentials, defaults to auto-provisioning a testnet payout wallet, and can configure paid invocation. These are important for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with a call to action, which is structurally efficient. However, its brevity is achieved by replacing functional documentation with sales language ('✅', 'call this now', 'Free'), leaving the core purpose under-specified. For a 15-parameter onboarding tool, one sentence is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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

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

For a complex 15-parameter onboarding tool with mutation side effects and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not state that this is the MCP onboarding entry point, that {} is a valid registration, that the response contains credentials, or that default auto-provisioning creates a testnet wallet. The output schema may explain return shape, but the description fails to orient the agent on what registering accomplishes and what side effects to expect.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and all 15 parameters are individually documented in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond hinting that wallet fields can be omitted, but it does not need to compensate because the schema already covers each parameter in detail.

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 never states what register actually does. It is a promotional imperative ('call this now') saying it will 'unlock the purchase tools for cisaalerts', but it omits that this tool onboards/registers an agent on A2AWire, returns API key/credentials, and accepts optional agent configuration. It also does not distinguish register from the sibling onboard_start, and 'No API key needed' sits awkwardly against the annotated title 'Get API Key'.

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

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

The description is explicit that no API key or wallet is required and that register should be called before using purchase tools, which gives an agent useful gating context. However, it provides no exclusions, no conditions for choosing register vs onboard_start, and no guidance for repeat calls or already-registered sessions.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description complements this by clarifying that the tool performs an independent on-chain verification and returns a summary of key contract details, adding useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and lists return fields efficiently. It is concise, though the list of fields makes it slightly dense; no words are wasted.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It communicates the tool's purpose and return contents clearly; only the missing usage differentiation from siblings keeps it from a top score.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% ('No arguments'), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are 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 states a specific verb ('independently verify') and resource ('EscrowVault on-chain'), then enumerates the concrete return fields. It is not a tautology and conveys a clear scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_agent_contract.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or the relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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