agentstack

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the response — catalog coverage, item count, last-update timestamp, and usage/licensing terms. It implies a read-only, side-effect-free metadata call. It does not state that it takes no arguments or has no side effects explicitly, keeping it below a 5.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with no filler; the colon-plus-list structure makes the returned fields scannable. It is slightly clipped ('usage terms' is unexplained) but nothing is 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is the only source of return-value information, and it gives only a terse field list. Terms like 'coverage' and 'usage terms' remain ambiguous — an agent does not know whether to expect license text, rate limits, or scope statistics. Adequate for a trivial info tool, but not 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly does not invent parameter discussion.

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 the resource (this catalog's metadata) and enumerates the four things it exposes — coverage, item count, last update, usage terms. That is clearly distinct from the siblings (search_tools, get_tool, compare_tools, list_categories), which all operate on individual tools or categories. It loses a point for lacking a verb and for the vague term 'coverage'.

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 when-to-use statement and no sibling is named as an alternative. Usage is only implied by the list of returned content — an agent can infer 'call this to learn about the catalog itself rather than to search it'. That is minimum-viable inference rather than 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about output shape, result ordering, handling of unknown or misspelled tool names, or whether comparison is per-request or cached. Only the mutation-vs-read character is vaguely implied by 'Compare'.

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

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

A single efficient sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is a virtue but borders on under-specification given the behavioral gaps.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must do more of the work for a comparison tool: what 'key specs' means, how missing tools are reported, and where valid names come from. None of that is covered, so an agent must guess before calling.

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 0%, so the single 'names' array parameter is undocumented in the schema; the description only indirectly signals that it takes tool names and requires at least two. It adds some meaning (minimum cardinality) but does not say whether names must match exactly or how they are obtained.

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 ('Compare ... tools') plus the dimensions compared ('key specs and price'), which distinguishes it from single-record siblings like get_tool. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the multi-tool comparison scope is 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 phrase 'two or more tools' implicitly sets the minimum input and suggests comparison-shopping usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as calling get_tool repeatedly or using search_tools to discover names first.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Full verified record' vaguely signals that the response is a complete, authoritative entry, but nothing is said about error behavior for a missing name, whether the lookup is case-sensitive or exact-match, or whether any auth is required.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in guidance and parameter 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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it says what is fetched. It falls short on identifier format and not-found behavior, which an agent needs 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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'name' parameter. The description only echoes the parameter's name ('by name') and adds no meaning such as exact-match semantics, casing, slug-vs-display-name format, or accepted input form.

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 and resource: retrieves the full record for a single tool identified by name. The 'one tool by name' phrasing distinguishes it in spirit from search_tools, but it never names the sibling or states the contrast 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?

'by name' implies this is the exact-lookup path you use once you already know the tool's name, which hints at when to prefer it over search_tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what to do if the name is unknown, and no routing guidance toward search_tools or catalog_info.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that results include per-category item counts, but says nothing about ordering, whether the list is complete or paginated, caching, or required permissions. For a read-only enumeration tool the risk is low, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond the payload hint.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most useful detail (item counts) is included rather than omitted. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

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

For a parameterless, non-destructive listing tool with no output schema, the description says enough: what is listed and what each entry carries. The remaining gap is the lack of any hint about result ordering or size, which matters modestly for an agent planning a browse step.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter text is needed or missing.

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 ('List the catalog categories') and adds the payload detail 'with item counts', so an agent knows exactly what the call returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling catalog_info, which could plausibly also surface category data, so it stops 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as catalog_info or search_tools. The only signal is the implied 'browse the category taxonomy' reading, which the agent must infer.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the output shape (a compact ranked shortlist with prices and links), which is genuine value beyond structured fields. However, it says nothing about permissions, result caps, ranking criteria, or whether omission of query is allowed for browsing.

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

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

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return behavior immediately following. Nothing is 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, covering the return shape is valuable and partially compensates. But the absence of parameter guidance and usage routing leaves real gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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% – query is documented, while limit and category are bare. The description adds no meaning for any parameter: it doesn't explain what category values look like, what limit defaults to, or whether query is free-text matching.

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 and resource ("Search the Agent Stack Data verified catalog of tools") and states the scope (verified catalog). It clearly implies discovery rather than retrieval-by-id, which separates it from get_tool, but it never names a sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over list_categories, compare_tools, or get_tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the routing from sibling names alone.

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