Graunt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read' is fully consistent with that. The description adds useful context by naming the exact fields returned (title, description, commercial terms, public URL), which helps the agent judge whether this tool satisfies the task before invoking it.

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 sentence with the action and resource front-loaded, followed by the return payload. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or vague 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 single-parameter read operation with readOnlyHint and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is read and what comes back. It does not define 'Graunt packet' or address not-found behavior, but those are not essential for a correct fetch 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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the input schema, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description's 'by id' restates that without adding format, source, or examples, which keeps this at the baseline for an adequately covered 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 identifies a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one Graunt catalog packet'), and the mode of access ('by id'). It also lists what is returned, which helps an agent understand the tool's scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_asset or search, so it is clear but not fully 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?

'By id' implies the tool is for retrieving a known packet rather than searching for one, so usage context is present only by implication. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer fetch over a sibling search tool, or 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 provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read' is consistent. It adds useful content context about D-269 v1 capability badges and commercial terms, but it does not describe return shape, access requirements, or other behavioral details.

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 with no filler; the title reinforces the purpose. The 'D-269 v1' parenthetical is somewhat cryptic but compact and does not waste space.

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?

Adequate for a simple one-parameter read operation with readOnlyHint, but with no output schema the agent is left to infer the manifest's exact return structure. It also lacks routing guidance among the sibling manifest 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only echoes 'for a listing' rather than explaining the listing_id parameter's semantics. The single UUID parameter is fairly self-explanatory from its name, but the description adds little 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('agent commerce manifest for a listing'), with the title clarifying that the resource is 'a listing's commercial terms'. The listing scope plus 'D-269 v1 capability badges' distinguishes it from sibling manifests like get_asset_manifest and get_bundle_manifest.

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?

Implies use when the caller needs the commercial terms or capability badges for a specific listing. It does not explicitly contrast with get_asset_manifest or get_bundle_manifest, nor say 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?

readOnlyHint already covers the non-mutating nature of the call. The description adds the meaningful qualifier 'public projection,' clarifying that the result is the public view of the listing. It does not discuss not-found or error behavior, but for a simple read-only tool the annotation plus this qualifier is sufficient.

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 definition is two tight sentences with the core operation first and the projection qualifier second. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant material.

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 read with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description is almost complete: operation, resource, lookup key, and response projection are all stated. The missing piece is an explicit pointer to sibling tools when the agent lacks an id or needs a manifest, but that gap is secondary for invoking this tool 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%, so the description must compensate. 'By id' maps to listing_id and the uuid format is already visible in the schema, but the description adds no further semantic detail such as value constraints or intended use of the id. It is minimal but workable for one 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('read a single listing by id') and matches the title, so an agent can tell it is a point-read rather than a search. It does not explicitly distinguish it from similarly named siblings like get_asset_manifest, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_assets or the manifest getters. The only implied signal is 'by id,' which duplicates the required listing_id parameter rather than adding routing 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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read operation, and the description consistently says 'Read'. The 'sha256-stamped' detail adds a small amount of behavioral context beyond the annotation, indicating the manifest has an integrity hash, but no return format, error behavior, or scope information 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 a single compact sentence with no redundant filler. The key action and the distinguishing 'sha256-stamped' detail are front-loaded, and every word 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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain what the asset manifest contains, how it differs from the sibling manifest tools, or what the agent should expect in the response. The readOnly annotation covers safety but not functional completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented listing_id parameter. It does not mention the parameter, its role, or how it relates to the manifest. The title's 'listing's' hints at the parameter's meaning, but the description itself adds no parameter-level semantics.

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 clear verb ('Read') and names a specific resource ('canonical asset manifest'), and the title adds 'listing's packet manifest' for more context. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_bundle_manifest or get_agent_commerce_manifest, but the 'asset' and 'listing' qualifiers make the target reasonably clear.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this tool over get_bundle_manifest or get_agent_commerce_manifest, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions. The agent must infer usage from the name and title alone.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful context by describing what the returned inventory contains, but it does not disclose potential failure modes, access requirements, or other behavioral nuances.

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 that front-loads the action and resource before listing the relevant output fields. It is concise and mostly free of filler, though the phrase 'counts that name the population each one counted' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description conveys the primary output contents and is mostly sufficient. However, it leaves the meaning of listing_id implicit and does not address how this tool relates to the sibling manifest and asset tools, so an agent may lack enough context to invoke it correctly in a complex workflow.

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 is only one required parameter, listing_id, and the schema provides no description for it. The tool description does not clarify what listing_id refers to or how it relates to the bundle, leaving the agent to infer that it identifies the bundle/listing. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated more.

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 a read operation on a bundle inventory and lists the specific returned fields: role, format, size, content hash, and counts. It is specific enough about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_asset_manifest or get_agent_commerce_manifest.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over its siblings or when not to use it. The intended use is implied by the name and wording, but the agent is left without explicit context for choosing between similar manifest-related 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?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description aligns with it by saying 'Read'. The description adds a little behavioral context by calling the endpoint 'authoritative', but it does not disclose what the capability map contains, whether authentication is required, or what the response looks like.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and the clarifying phrase 'authoritative capability state map' earns its place by conveying the tool's 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 zero-parameter, read-only meta endpoint, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of detail about the response format, and there is no output schema to compensate, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major deficiency.

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?

With zero parameters, there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The schema is fully complete for this tool, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('/v1/meta/capabilities'), clearly identifying what the tool does. The phrase 'authoritative capability state map' adds meaning beyond the tool name, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the similarly named sibling meta_refinery_support_matrix.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as meta_refinery_support_matrix or fetch. The description only states what the tool reads, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description simply restates 'Read' and gives the endpoint, adding no additional behavioral context such as response characteristics, pagination, or side-effect warnings.

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 with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded, though it relies on the title to convey the actual meaning of the resource.

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 endpoint, the description is minimally sufficient, but it does not explain what the response contains or when this metadata endpoint should be queried. The title adds context, but the description alone is thin.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 clear verb ('Read') and an explicit resource path, and the title clarifies the resource as 'supported packet source types.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the endpoint and title are specific enough to identify the tool's 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch or meta_capabilities. It only states the endpoint, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, and the description adds that the operation searches the catalog and returns packet ids, titles, and public URLs. It does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination or ranking, but for a simple read-only search this is adequate.

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 tight sentences with the action and resource front-loaded. Every sentence contributes information and there is no 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 read-only search tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema available, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. The only notable gap is not clarifying its distinction from search_assets.

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%, so the schema already documents query and limit parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond identifying the catalog being searched.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Graunt catalog of evaluated data packets') and names the return fields, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_assets, 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_assets or the other sibling tools. It implies a general search use case but provides no exclusions, conditions, or alternative routing.

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 description is not required to establish safety. It adds modest value by noting the catalog is public and results are paginated, but does not explain pagination mechanics, result shape, or any rate-limit/auth considerations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the return characteristic is stated concisely. Every word 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 simple two-parameter search tool with a read-only annotation, the description is largely complete. It names the search scope, indicates pagination, and the schema covers defaults and caps. The only minor gap is not describing what fields a returned match contains, but the absence of an output schema makes this less critical here.

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%, so the input schema already documents both 'q' and 'limit' thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable for the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: searching the public catalog of evaluated packets and listings, with paginated matches. It is distinct from generic siblings like 'search' by naming the public catalog resource, though it does not explicitly call out the differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search', 'fetch', or 'get_asset'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be preferred or when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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