InfoAddict Public Site

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it returns a zero-input public bundle and explicitly warns that the content does not state Dan is seeking roles. This non-obvious behavioral constraint is valuable.

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 deliver the purpose, audience, input requirement, and an important limitation without any filler. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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-input tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It states what is returned, for whom, and a key semantic boundary. There are no hidden parameters or behavioral surprises left undocumented.

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's statement that it is zero-input covers the full parameter surface. The schema already documents an empty object, and describing parameters further would be redundant.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('public evidence bundle'), and clarifies the intended audience and the important boundary that it does not claim Dan is seeking roles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_services and assess_infoaddict_engagement_fit by focusing on role-fit evidence.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for established role-fit clients needing public evidence to apply locally. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the role-fit phrasing and sibling names make the intended use reasonably discernible.

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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds value by specifying zero-input behavior, public evidence, and the limitation that it does not state consulting or advisory availability. No contradictions with annotations.

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 deliver the primary function and a key limitation with no filler. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 empty input schema, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the tool is simple to invoke correctly. The description gives enough purpose and boundary context, though a bit more detail on how this differs from assess_dan_role_fit or get_site_guide would improve 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?

The schema has no parameters and full coverage, so there is little to explain; the description reinforces this with 'zero-input.' This meets the baseline for a zero-parameter 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 clearly states that the tool returns a public evidence bundle for engagement-fit clients, using a specific verb and resource. The name and title further distinguish it from assess_dan_role_fit, though the description itself does not explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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 provides a clear audience and context: established engagement-fit clients using their own local context. The negative statement about consulting or advisory availability signals a boundary, but it does not name alternative tools such as get_services or get_contact_options.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds transparency by stating that no message is sent, no meeting is booked, and no personal data is collected, which aligns and complements the annotations. This adds value beyond the structured data, hence a 4.

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 is concise, front-loaded, and zero-waste. It clearly conveys the purpose and key non-actions in one line, which is ideal for agent consumption.

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 tool is simple with zero parameters, and the output schema exists, so return values are likely documented structurally. The description covers the essential behavioral aspects (non-intrusive read operation). It could potentially note that results are public-only, but the description is adequate for this low-complexity 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, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since no parameters exist). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on the tool's behavior. Given no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate per the rubric, and the description adds sufficient context.

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 'returns public contact options' without sending a message or collecting personal data, which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying the non-intrusive nature, though it could be more explicit about what 'contact options' includes (e.g., email, phone numbers).

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 when to use this tool by emphasizing it does not send messages or book meetings, distinguishing it from action-oriented tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state scenarios where siblings like get_site_guide might be more appropriate, so it lacks full exclusion 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly stating that the result does not include current availability, which prevents the agent from assuming availability data is present.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded, and the key limitation about availability is stated directly. Every sentence 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?

Given the zero-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is mostly complete. The phrase 'established services clients' could be more explicit about qualification, but this is a minor ambiguity and not essential for invoking the 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to explain parameters, and 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: returning a read-only professional-context summary for established services clients. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like assess_infoaddict_engagement_fit or get_site_guide, but the scope and the 'does not state current availability' caveat make the core purpose reasonably distinct.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate: for established services clients needing a professional-context summary. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the 'read-only' and 'does not state current availability' phrasing signals boundaries that help an agent decide.

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 description says 'read-only' and 'public agent-readable resources', but annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. It adds mild scope context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 is direct, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 parameter-less, read-only guide tool with relevant annotations and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It lacks only a bit of explicit orientation on when to prefer this tool over its siblings.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The schema is empty and fully covered, so no compensation is 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 what the tool does: it returns a read-only guide to InfoAddict and its public agent-readable resources. The resource and scope are specific, making it distinct from sibling tools that retrieve services or contacts.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. Usage is only implied through the word 'guide', which signals this is likely for orientation rather than a specialized lookup.

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