Demo Bakery (fictional AgentVisibly demo)

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is light. It adds useful context by enumerating the returned fields and flagging that Demo Bakery is fictional, though it says nothing about whether the data is static or where it originates.

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. It could be marginally stronger with an explicit verb ('Returns ...'), but every word carries 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place the return shape can be documented, and it does that by listing the fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, though nested structure or link format remains unspecified.

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. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not waste space on parameter talk.

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 specific resource and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, description, address, phone, email, website, links), so an agent can tell it apart from get_hours or list_products by content alone. It never explicitly says 'get' or names a sibling, but the field list is concrete enough to be 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_hours or list_products, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the field list, which is workable but not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The only added signal is provenance ('as published by the owner'), and the description says nothing about freshness, timezone, or whether the fictional sample data is authoritative—minimal value beyond the annotation.

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

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

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource, with no filler or redundancy. Nothing in it fails to earn its place.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, this is nearly sufficient—the agent knows what it retrieves and from whom. A brief note on return shape (e.g., per-day hours, timezone) would close the remaining gap left by the missing output 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, which is the baseline-4 case. No misleading parameter information is present.

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 restates the title's resource ('opening hours') and adds the target entity and data provenance ('Demo Bakery (fictional), as published by the owner'). It never distinguishes this from the sibling get_business_info, which plausibly also surfaces hours, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them from the description alone.

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 and no mention of the closest alternative (get_business_info) or when hours are unavailable. The agent must infer that this is the dedicated hours lookup purely from the name.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds one piece of behavioral context beyond that — prices may be missing ("when known") — but says nothing about pagination, default result size, or ordering, which matters for a listing tool.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. The "(fictional)" qualifier is a minor aside but costs almost nothing.

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-parameter read tool this covers the basics, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a result contains (name, price, category, availability), and the limit/paging behavior is left entirely to inference. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the response shape.

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 50%: query is documented in the schema (case-insensitive on name/description/category), so the description's "optional text filter" is largely redundant, and the limit parameter (default 25, max 100) is never mentioned anywhere. The description does not compensate for the undocumented 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?

Names the concrete resource (products, services, menu items from Demo Bakery) and its scope (prices when known), which distinguishes it from get_business_info, get_hours, send_inquiry and start_order. The verb is only implied by the name/title rather than stated in the description, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for browsing the catalog or menu. There is no statement of when to prefer it over siblings (e.g., before start_order) and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the delivery path (owner dashboard, plus a notification channel only on paid plans) and that the owner replies to reply_to. That is genuinely useful side-effect context. It is silent on failure behavior, rate limits, and whether the sender's identity or IP is exposed, which matters for a send-style tool.

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

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

Two compact sentences, with the destination and delivery behavior front-loaded and the consent constraint last. No filler. A slightly tighter phrasing would earn a 5, but nothing here is wasteful.

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 three-parameter outbound message tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers recipient, delivery channel, and reply path, which is the core of what an agent needs. It still leaves the response side undefined (no confirmation, no message ID, no indication of what the tool returns), so the agent cannot predict the outcome of a call.

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 needs to compensate, and it does not. It restates what the schema already says about reply_to ("the owner replies to reply_to") and says nothing about the optional 'name' parameter, which is completely undocumented in both places, nor about the 2000-character limit's practical 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Leave a message for Demo Bakery") and clarifies that it is an inquiry routed to the business owner rather than an order, which is enough to tell it apart from start_order. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating an explicit contrast, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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

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

"Only send with the user's consent" is a real precondition, so the description does more than imply usage. However, it gives no when-not guidance and never contrasts this with alternatives such as start_order or get_business_info, leaving the agent to infer when an inquiry is preferable to placing an order.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this in plain language by explicitly denying that an order is placed — valuable because the tool name implies a write action. It doesn't cover what the returned link looks like (URL string? embedded in text?), leaving a small gap.

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

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

Two short sentences, no filler, and the affirmative purpose is front-loaded ahead of the clarifying denial. Every clause earns its place.

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

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

For a link-returning tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return (an ordering/checkout link) and the side-effect profile. Slight gap: it doesn't say whether the link is personalized to the 'items' input or whether that parameter is ignored entirely.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single 'items' parameter is already documented in the schema as '(informational)'. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable at full coverage but means no extra semantic value is contributed.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Get the official online ordering or checkout link' for a named entity. This also disambiguates the potentially misleading tool name 'start_order' (which sounds like a mutation). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_products, but the resource is distinct enough to be told apart.

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 order is placed by this tool' tells the agent what this tool does NOT do, which is useful guardrail context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus list_products (browse items) or send_inquiry (ask questions), so the agent must infer the routing.

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