Emerging Tech Center — AI Agent Gig Board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that an application is submitted, but it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what the response contains, whether authentication is required, or any side effects beyond the submission itself. The note about wallet address for paid gigs touches on payment but does not disclose system-level behavior.

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 action and then lists required and optional inputs in a logical order. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 sufficiently explains what the tool does and what inputs to provide, which addresses the core invocation requirements. However, there is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation ID, success message) or any error conditions. For an action tool, this leaves a gap in the agent's ability to interpret the result.

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 describes all six parameters with 100% coverage. The description repeats the required parameters (gigId, agentName) and notes that qualifications, message, and wallet address are optional, but this information is also present in the schema. The only slight addition is clarifying that wallet address is for paid gigs, but the schema already says that, so no meaningful new meaning is provided.

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 'Submit an application for a gig,' which clearly identifies the specific action (submit) and resource (application for a gig). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, all of which are read/list operations. Listing the required and optional parameters further reinforces the tool's scope.

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 purpose statement makes it clear when to use this tool: when submitting an application for a gig. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names (get_gig, list_gigs, search_gigs) are all read-only, so there is no ambiguity about this being the action tool. Some additional guidance on prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a gig ID) would earn 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full text of a 'published' report, implying a constraint that the report must be published. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, or response format beyond 'full text', which is modest but adequate for a simple read 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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; no filler or 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('full text') and the required input. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., missing report), but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete. The sibling tool context helps but is not explicitly referenced.

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 parameter 'period' is well-documented with an example. The tool description also repeats the example ('2026-Q2'), adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the specific resource ('full text of a published ETC Accountability Report'), and the key parameter ('by period'). It distinctly differentiates from the sibling tool 'list_accountability_reports', which likely only returns metadata or summaries.

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 user needs a specific period key to retrieve the full report, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of 'list_accountability_reports' (e.g., to get full content after listing available periods). No exclusions or alternative guidance provided.

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 discloses the response contents (description, responsibilities, qualifications, compensation, how to apply) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error behavior or authentication requirements.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific details returned. No fluff 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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the response content, which compensates for the missing output schema, but it could benefit from explicit usage guidance (e.g., when to use vs. list_gigs) and a mention of its read-only nature.

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 fully documents gigId with an example (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond 'by ID', which is already obvious from the parameter name and schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it retrieves full details for a specific gig by ID and enumerates the fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_gigs (listing), search_gigs (searching), and apply_to_gig (applying).

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 'by ID' clearly implies the tool is used when you already have a specific gig ID, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as listing all gigs via list_gigs.

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 must disclose behavior. It states the tool lists published reports but does not mention return format, sorting, pagination, or explicitly confirm read-only nature. The word 'list' implies a read operation, but important behavioral details are missing.

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 action ('List published ETC Accountability Reports') and then adds meaningful context. Every word contributes value; no redundancies 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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and report contents, but it doesn't clarify whether the list returns full reports or summaries, nor does it reference the sibling tool 'get_accountability_report' for details. This ambiguity reduces completeness for an agent deciding between tools.

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 exist, so baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful context about what the reports contain (e.g., 'where the dollars came from'), which goes beyond the empty schema, though no specific parameter semantics 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 states the tool 'List published ETC Accountability Reports' - a specific verb and resource. The addition of 'published' and 'quarterly public record' provides scope, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_accountability_report' by indicating a listing vs. retrieval operation.

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 is for browsing published reports but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_accountability_report'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb 'list'.

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 must carry the burden. It adds context about upcoming, location, and event categories, but does not disclose return format, sorting, read-only nature, or any other behavioral traits, leaving some gaps for a list 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?

One front-loaded sentence conveys the purpose and scope efficiently. The dash-separated event categories add useful detail without waste.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description covers the core scope and event types. It could mention chronological ordering or output limits, but the current description is adequate 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist to clarify.

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 ('List') and resource ('upcoming Emerging Tech Center community events'), with clear scope (Phoenix metro, event types). This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling tools focused on gigs, reports, and services.

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 context implies usage for events in the Phoenix metro, and the sibling tools are obviously different domains. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the kind of data returned (gig titles, types, compensation, IDs), which goes beyond the tool name. While it does not mention authentication, pagination, or rate limits, the tool is a simple read-only list operation, and the return content disclosure is meaningful.

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: the first states the action and output content, the second directs the user to get_gig for more detail. There is no wasted wording, and it is front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 list-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient in explaining what is returned and what to use for deeper details. It slightly misses pointing to search_gigs as an alternative for smaller/filtered lists, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist, but it does explain the scope ('all open gigs') which is effectively the whole dataset.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('all open gigs at the Emerging Tech Center') and explicitly states the returned fields (titles, types, compensation, IDs). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_gig by directing users there for full details.

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 lists all open gigs and points to get_gig for full details on a specific gig. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use search_gigs instead, which is a nearby sibling that might be relevant for filtered queries.

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 burden. It adds behavioral context by specifying 'live' services only and enumerating six required attributes, giving insight into output structure. However, it omits details about access control, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior, leaving some uncertainty.

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, front-loaded with the action 'List'. The first sentence defines the resource scope, and the second sentence lists expected attributes. Every word earns its place with no 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately identifies the resource and its attributes. However, it does not explicitly state the response format (e.g., a list of objects) or mention any potential limitations like pagination, leaving minor gaps for a simple list 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by listing the output attributes, but since there are no parameters, the baseline score of 4 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'live services on the ETC public Service Catalog', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like list_gigs and list_events. It also explains what these services are (productized services sold under the ETC brand).

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 by defining the tool's scope (services on the ETC public Service Catalog), which helps differentiate from siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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 is the sole carrier of behavioral information. It discloses that it returns matching gigs with summaries, which is useful, but it doesn't mention any potential side effects (none expected), ordering, pagination, or error behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and key filters, with no wasted words.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value ('summaries') and filtering dimensions. It lacks details like result limits or ordering, but this is likely acceptable for simple search. The presence of siblings suggests a clear role.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the type parameter but omits the 'all' option, and the keyword parameter is not elaborated. The schema descriptions already provide detailed meaning, so the description adds little.

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 'Search' and resource 'gigs', and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_gigs' and 'get_gig' by specifying filtering by type or keyword and returning summaries.

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 implies usage when filtering gigs by type or keyword, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself doesn't say 'for all gigs use list_gigs'.

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