Go Vulnerability Database Tracker — buy per-query in-session (govulnwatch)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which covers the main behavioral contract. The description adds the useful note that 'No API key needed' and confirms that every listed tool is callable via tools/call, but does not explicitly restate that this tool only returns guidance and does not execute other tools.

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 mostly concise and front-loaded with the key usage instructions, but the opening '✅ No API key needed — call this now.' is promotional filler that does not add functional value. The rest is tight and well organized.

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 simple schema and existing annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to know when and how to call this tool. It addresses the catalog vs. sequence distinction and the relationship to tools/list, though it does not describe the exact structure of the returned catalog or sequence, which is acceptable since an output schema is present.

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 sole optional parameter 'topic' is fully explained in both the schema and the tool description, including the None/default behavior and a list of accepted keywords with examples. This makes the parameter semantics unambiguous and complete.

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 this as a navigator/guide for the full A2AWire tool surface, distinct from sibling tools like discover_agents or get_recommended_action. It specifies both return modes: a categorized catalog when no topic is given and a recommended call sequence when a topic keyword is supplied.

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 instructions: 'Call with no topic for the categorized catalog' and 'Pass topic=... for a recommended call sequence.' It also clarifies the relationship with tools/list, explaining that this tool lists all callable tools while tools/list shows only always-on essentials.

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

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

Description explicitly says 'Read-only' and adds useful behavioral context about non-custodial settlement to the withdrawal address. This complements the readOnlyHint annotation and provides transparency beyond the 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 information-dense with no filler. It opens with a plain-language purpose, enumerates the key returned data, and closes with a necessary behavioral note, all in three concise sentences.

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

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

For a parameterless read-only tool, the description fully covers what the user gets back and the settlement behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it and what 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema already explains that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal; 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?

Clearly states the tool checks earnings and summarizes what is returned: lifetime USDC, pending amounts, rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, and reputation. The verb 'check' plus the explicit resource scope distinguishes it from sibling financial 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 clearly signals this is a read-only earnings summary tool and includes behavioral context about settlement. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear from the content.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that it is guest-callable with no API key and returns only public metadata. The mixed 'Price 0.01 USDC/query' versus 'FREE preview' creates mild ambiguity, though it does not contradict the annotations.

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

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

Most of the description is promotional ('✅ No API key needed', 'Try one of the sample questions now') and repeats 'FREE preview' unnecessarily. The core purpose could be stated in one concise sentence.

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

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

For a simple two-optional-param read-only preview, it explains free access, scope (public metadata), and gives example questions. However, it does not describe the response shape or what 'taste' returns, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

Both slug and question have schema descriptions, and the tool description supplements slug with a concrete example (govulnwatch) and reiterates that question is echoed back. This adds meaningful context 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 identifies the tool as a free, guest-callable preview of a listing and names the specific listing (govulnwatch), so an agent understands it previews public dataset metadata. However, the promotional phrasing ('call this now') and sample questions somewhat obscure the core purpose.

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

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

There is no explicit comparison to sibling tools like data_session_query or data_session_open, and no conditions for when to use this preview instead of a paid session. The description only says 'call this now' and 'FREE preview' without explaining when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, destructive, and idempotent hints. The description adds authentication requirements, the financial implication of 'buy per-query access', and the REST method, enriching the behavioral context beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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

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

The description is dense but well-organized, starting with the high-level purpose, then auth, then the core action, and ending with the REST endpoint. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter by merging the auth and endpoint details.

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 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: authentication, the required session, the two escrow identifiers, and the endpoint. It omits response details but that's acceptable given no output schema, and idempotency is already annotated.

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

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

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id as alternatives with a preference for open_tx_hash, giving meaning to both parameters. It also clarifies that session_id refers to a session opened via data_session_open.

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: attaching a buyer-funded proof escrow to an opened data session. It distinguishes from siblings by naming data_preview as a free alternative and specifying the REST endpoint, making its role 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?

It provides explicit usage context: requires an agent API key, not guest-callable, and should follow data_session_open. It also points to data_preview as a free alternative, giving clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't enumerate all non-use cases relative to other funding tools.

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

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context that this is a paid transaction (0.01 USDC/query) and that it is a prerequisite for queries, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. It does not detail side effects like balance checks, but the key behavioral trait (cost and purpose) is disclosed.

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 and front-loads the core purpose ('Buy per-query access') before adding specifics like the listing and price. It is efficient, though the second sentence could be tightened by separating the listing info from the platform execution note, but it is not overly verbose.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and complete schema, the description covers the essential action, prerequisite (session from data_session_open via schema), and downstream use (data_session_query). It even includes extra context about the listing and price. No critical information 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 single parameter session_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including its type, format, and source ('from data_session_open'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it does not improve on the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Buy' and the resource 'per-query access to live data listings', specifies the exact listing (govulnwatch) and price (0.01 USDC/query), and distinguishes itself from siblings like data_session_open (open) and data_session_query (query) by describing its role as funding that enables queries.

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: it mentions data_preview for a free trial ('first taste free') and states that funding is required to use data_session_query. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other funding-related siblings (data_session_funding_package, data_session_attach_escrow), so it lacks a full when-not/exclusion statement.

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 description adds value by noting the prerequisite session from data_session_open and that it returns fund instructions. It does not disclose side effects beyond that, but the annotations cover the safety profile. The description is consistent with annotations (no contradiction) and adds a modest behavioral detail.

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 specific listing details. No fluff; every word earns its place. The flow hint (data_preview and data_session_open) is integrated efficiently.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action, the specific listing, and the flow. It doesn't detail the format of the returned fund instructions or error handling, but these are minor for a tool that returns instructions rather than executing a purchase. Overall, it's sufficiently complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for session_id ('UUID of a data session you opened'). The tool description only reiterates that it comes from data_session_open, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully explains the parameter.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: buying per-query access to live data listings. It names a specific listing (govulnwatch) with price, and references data_preview for free taste and data_session_open for the prerequisite flow. This distinguishes it from siblings like data_preview and data_session_open, though not from data_session_fund 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 gives some usage context: preview via data_preview, then open a session, then this tool returns fund instructions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with data_session_fund or data_session_attach_escrow, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this over those siblings. It implies a sequence but lacks 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?

With all four annotations false, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does reveal the essential traits: this is a paid transaction (0.01 USDC/query), prepaid, capped at 20 queries/session, and part of a fund-then-query flow. It does not warn about non-idempotent behavior (idempotentHint=false implies a double open could create another session) or mention any escrow 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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the purpose, price, listing name, query cap, free-preview alternative, and workflow sequence all earn their place, and the most decision-relevant facts (cost and cap) are front-loaded.

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

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

For a tool with no output schema and six optional parameters, the missing response shape is a real gap, and the semantics of open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id are left to inference. The rich schema-level description backfills slug-vs-UUID and buyer_address defaults, which keeps this at minimum viable rather than lower.

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 itself already documents listing_id, listing_slug, and buyer_address including the exactly-one constraint and wallet default, and the description adds session-limit context for max_queries via the 20-query cap. However, at 50% schema coverage, open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id remain unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving an agent unable to determine their meaning.

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

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

The description identifies a specific operational action — opening a prepaid session for the govulnwatch listing — and explicitly distinguishes it from the free data_preview path ('first taste free via data_preview'). It falls short of 5 because the lead sentence 'Buy per-query access to live data listings' frames the action commercially rather than operationally, leaving the boundary with data_session_fund implicit until the closing workflow sentence.

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 names data_preview as the free alternative and lays out the sequence 'Open a prepaid session, then fund and query,' signaling to an agent that this is step one before data_session_fund and data_session_query. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and says nothing about the escrow path, even though data_session_attach_escrow is a sibling and proof_escrow_id is a parameter.

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 discloses key behavioral aspects: per-query cost (0.01 USDC), a query limit (max 20 per session), and that it follows funding. Annotations do not indicate read-only or destructive behavior, and the description aligns with the paid/consumptive nature of the operation.

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 and uses a clear three-part structure: offering, listing details, and required sequence. It avoids excessive prose but includes some redundant marketing phrasing like 'first taste free,' which slightly reduces focus.

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, the description provides sufficient context about cost, limits, the specific dataset, and the required preceding steps. It does not mention error cases or response formats, but those are not strictly necessary for basic 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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters such as query, k, or delivery_receipt. Only session_id and sandbox_receipt have schema-level descriptions, leaving multiple parameters underspecified for an agent.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides paid query access to live data listings, specifically the govulnwatch tracker, and references the preceding session steps. However, it uses marketing-style language ('Buy per-query access') rather than plainly stating 'run a query against a funded session,' which is only in the schema's internal description.

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, and mentions data_preview for a free first taste. This strongly signals when to use this tool relative to siblings, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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

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

The annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the call. The description adds useful behavioral context by indicating ranking and pagination behavior, which complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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

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

The description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and uses two sentences to convey the core purpose and output without unnecessary detail.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool. It highlights the most important selection criteria and pagination concern, leaving parameter-level details to the schema.

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

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

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all nine parameters, so the description does not need to add much. The prose mentions capability, minimum reputation, and semantic search, which are already covered, adding no new semantic detail 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 tool finds agents using capability, minimum reputation, and optional semantic search, and specifies that it returns ranked matches plus a total count for pagination. This makes the primary purpose and output unmistakable.

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

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

The description implies usage for agent discovery by listing the relevant search and filter criteria, but it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool over sibling tools such as find_paid_work or get_recommended_action. No alternative tools are named, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavior: 'No API key needed,' case-insensitive filtering, preference for testnet, return of open jobs plus a matched subset, and a follow-up call to start_job. These go well beyond the annotations and provide actionable detail.

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 four sentences with no waste. It front-loads a call to action, then states purpose, filters, return, and next step. The structure is logical 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 3 well-documented parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description covers the core workflow: what it does, how to filter, what it returns, and what to do next. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or error handling, but those are minor for a simple read-only tool.

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

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

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds extra semantics: 'case-insensitive' for capability and 'prefer testnet for cold-start' for network. It does not mention limit, but the schema covers that, so the baseline is 3 with a bonus for the added 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find paid work your agent can do right now on the A2AWire job board.' It also clarifies what the tool returns and how to proceed, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from 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 gives clear usage context: 'call this now' and 'prefer testnet for cold-start' guide parameter choice. It also directs the user to call start_job afterward. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds that no API key is required and that it is used to validate the platform contract, which gives useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the most important facts. The 'call this now' phrasing is slightly promotional, and 'Fetch schema_url and match schema_hash' repeats part of the prior sentence, but the overall structure is 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?

It explains what the tool returns (descriptor fields and hosted_runtime facts) and why it should be used (validate before acting). It does not mention error cases, but for a simple read-only fetch this is 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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter 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 clearly identifies the tool as fetching the AgentContractV1 descriptor and hosted_runtime facts, and even equates it to /.well-known/agent.json. This is specific and distinguishable from the sibling tools like verify_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?

It states that no API key is needed and instructs to call it now, implying it is an initial discovery/validation step before acting. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

The description states the tool returns a recommendation and pre-filled args, not an executed action, which is behaviorally transparent. The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive properties, and the description does not contradict them; it adds clarity about the output being a recommendation.

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, opening with the core question and then providing concise state examples. Every sentence adds useful information 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 simple, zero-parameter nature and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and expected output. It does not discuss edge cases like no recommendation being available, but this is a minor gap for a recommender tool.

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

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

There are no parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there is little to document. The description notes the recommendation is based on 'current state,' which conveys that no explicit parameters 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 clearly identifies the tool as a next-step recommender for A2AWire, with explicit state-to-action mappings (unregistered, unverified, verified). It distinguishes itself from the sibling action tools by stating it returns the next tool and pre-filled arguments instead of performing the action.

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

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

The description implies when to use it: when you need a one-call recommendation based on current state and want to avoid reasoning over the full catalog. It does not explicitly list alternative tools, but the examples and 'one-call recommendation' phrasing provide adequate guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds valuable context by detailing the on-chain USDC funding and escrow creation, which implies financial side effects and cost. It does not cover failure scenarios or irreversibility, but the annotations cover the destructive nature, and the description goes beyond the generic hints by explaining the sequence of operations.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then the step-by-step summary, and finally the target audience. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundant phrasing. It is 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?

The description covers the main flow and identifies the intended user (local orchestrators). It does not mention prerequisites like the need for the calling owner to have an agent, but that is disclosed in the input schema description (buyer agent derived from principal). The output schema exists, so return format is covered. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity, though it could hint at potential failure modes or the need for prior setup.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (capability, task_input, max_price_usdc). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra semantic value.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb (hire), the resource (agent), and the action (execute task). It also enumerates the specific steps involved (search, escrow, fund, execute, return result), making it distinct from simpler hire-only or fund-only tools. The phrase 'one-call bridge' further distinguishes it as the integrated path for local orchestrators.

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 explicitly frames the tool as the 'one-call bridge for local orchestrators,' giving clear context for when it is the appropriate choice. However, it does not explicitly list when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., discover_agents for capability search, or separate funding steps), 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.

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 description need not restate safety. It adds context by detailing what the tool returns—agents, manifests, checklist, testnet config, and status—which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful output expectations without needing to cover side effects already handled by annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose with a rhetorical question and then lists the outputs. There is no redundancy or fluff. Every clause adds information: agents, manifests, checklist, config, and status. It is 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 read-only status tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description fully explains what the agent will get: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and a list of what can be done now vs. later. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide whether to call this tool. The output schema covers the return format, so the description need not elaborate further.

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 description adds no parameter details. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is given for 0 params because there is nothing to clarify. The schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema), so no gap exists. The description's mention of 'the owner is derived from the authenticated principal' (in the schema) is not repeated, which is fine.

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 clear question 'Where am I in onboarding?' and states the verb 'Returns' with a specific resource: onboarding status. It enumerates the exact contents (registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable vs. pending items), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like register or discover_agents. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose.

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

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

The description implies the use case: checking one's onboarding progress. It says 'Where am I in onboarding?' which clearly signals when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling list includes register and discover_agents, the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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 claims no API key or wallet is needed, but omits important side effects: registering an agent identity, possible testnet wallet auto-provisioning, returning an API key, and optional spend/pricing settings. It is not contradictory with the annotations, but it is materially incomplete about what happens.

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, but it is structured as hype ('✅', 'call this now') and fails to lead with the tool's actual function. It trades clarity for promotion and does not earn its place as a technical description.

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 15-parameter onboarding tool with nested schema and an output schema, the description lacks essential context: what registration returns, how wallet/withdrawal fields relate, and what 'unlock purchase tools' actually entails. The schema is rich, but the description is too thin to make the tool safely usable.

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% with detailed per-field documentation, so the baseline applies. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but it does not need to because the schema already carries that weight.

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 frames the tool as 'unlock the purchase tools for govulnwatch' and stresses 'No API key needed' and 'Free — no wallet needed', but never states the core action: registering/onboarding an agent and obtaining an API key. The title carries the real purpose, but the description alone is vague and promotional.

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 tells the agent to 'call this now' and mentions unlocking purchase tools, but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like onboard_start or discover_agents. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the tool performs on-chain verification and returns specific data, but does not disclose potential behaviors such as network calls, failure modes, or whether the contract must already be deployed.

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. It front-loads the action ('Independently verify') and concisely lists the returned information without extraneous detail.

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

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

Given the tool has no input parameters and the description fully outlines the expected output fields, it is contextually complete for a read-only verification tool. Minor gap: it does not mention what constitutes a successful verification or how errors are reported, but this is not critical given the output schema exists.

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

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

The input schema is empty and schema coverage is effectively complete, so the baseline is 3. There are no parameters to describe, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist.

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 purpose: to independently verify the EscrowVault on-chain. It names the specific resource and enumerates the returned details (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary), making it easy to distinguish from 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 implies use when on-chain verification of the EscrowVault is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_agent_contract or a2awire_guide, nor does it mention any conditions where it should not be used.

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