Ask a human expert

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: online is defined as first reply within 15 minutes, next_online_utc is mentioned, paused requests are exposed, and free-trial status affects whether payment or transaction_id is required. It could say more about freshness or exact paused semantics, but it is substantially informative.

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-loads the main status categories. The first sentence is dense and packs several distinct facts together, but every clause carries useful 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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context: what statuses are reported, what the online threshold means, and when the agent should check the tool. Return-value details can be left to the 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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the empty 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 identifies the status information returned: online availability, next online time, paused requests, and free-trial eligibility. It implies a relationship to submit_request via 'check it before submitting,' but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings 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?

It gives a clear usage trigger: 'Changes over time: check it before submitting.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as get_terms.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the terms are in English and include a PayPal pay_url, signaling a payment flow, but says nothing about freshness (whether terms change), caching, or size of the payload.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and then lists its contents; every item in the list carries information an agent needs to decide to call it.

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 an output schema present and no parameters, the definition need only say what the tool is for, which it does. The one gap is behavioral: no note on whether the terms are static or can change between calls.

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 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; 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 a specific resource (the offer's terms) and enumerates its contents — answers, deliverables, price, hours, response times, pay_url, submission instructions — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_status, but the content list makes the boundary reasonably evident.

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: by listing 'how to submit a request' it hints that submit_request is the follow-on action, but it never says when to call this versus get_status or submit_request. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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 say this is non-read-only, non-destructive and open-world; the description goes far beyond that by disclosing the 20 USD payment requirement, that the tool itself takes no payments, that the reply arrives by email outside this server, expected latency (15 minutes when online, otherwise 09:30 UTC), an immediate confirmation email, and a 5-requests-per-hour rate limit. That is unusually rich disclosure of side effects and external dependencies.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries operational weight — payment, word limit, delivery channel, timing, rate limit. The prose is a dense wall of clauses with the payment mechanics spliced mid-paragraph, which hurts scanability, but little is genuinely expendable.

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

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

For an open-world, non-idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs before calling: cost, payment mechanics, required transaction ID, content limits, delivery channel, turnaround time, and throttling. Return values are handled by the output schema, so no gap remains.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning on top by explaining the transaction_id payment precondition tied to get_status, the 300-word cap on summary ('all I read for the first reply'), and that reply_email receives both the confirmation and the human reply. Slight redundancy with the schema descriptions keeps it from a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — send a problem to a named human expert for a creative solution idea — which is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools get_status (payment/trial state) and get_terms. An agent knows exactly what this tool accomplishes without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions and the alternative path: 'unless get_status shows free_trial, pay 20 USD by PayPal... then pass the PayPal transaction ID'. It names the sibling tool to consult and the exact condition under which payment can be skipped, leaving nothing to inference.

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