InfoAddict Public Site

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 that it returns a 'zero-input, public evidence and instruction bundle,' which clarifies the output nature but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like data sources or limitations 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, dense sentence that packs in the tool's purpose, audience, and input source without fluff. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Return a zero-input, public evidence and instruction bundle') and is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool has no parameters, no nested objects, and a rich output schema (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently explains the tool's function. It could benefit from mentioning what the output bundle contains or how it should be used, but the combination of annotations and description covers the essentials for a simple 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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description explains that the tool requires no input and uses local role context, which adds meaning beyond the empty schema. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns a bundle for assessing a leadership role fit, specifying the target audience (recruiter, hiring manager, executive-search agent) and the input source (local role context). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Dan Crane role fit, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 for role-fit assessment but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions the tool uses 'its own local role context' but doesn't clarify prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-mutating. The description adds context that it is 'zero-input' and 'public', which are useful behavioral details beyond annotations, but does not disclose any output format details or additional side effects (though the output schema is available).

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key qualifiers ('zero-input', 'public', 'founder or leader', 'local context'). No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope. It mentions the target audience (founder/leader), the subject (InfoAddict engagement), and the mode (using local context). One could argue it could mention what the bundle looks like, but with an output schema, the burden is lighter.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage (vacuously). The description clearly states it is 'zero-input', which is sufficient. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate given the schema is fully described and the description confirms zero-input.

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 a bundle for assessing InfoAddict engagement fit, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('evidence and instruction bundle'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like assess_dan_role_fit by targeting InfoAddict specifically, though it could be clearer about what 'engagement fit' means.

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 it should be used when a founder or leader wants to assess an InfoAddict engagement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like assess_dan_role_fit or other siblings. It mentions 'using its own local context' but provides no exclusions or alternative 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, 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?

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description reinforces this by explicitly saying 'read-only summary.' It adds a small behavioral detail about returning the 'canonical services page,' which is useful. No contradiction with annotations, and the description adds a bit of context beyond 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly states the purpose and a key detail (canonical services page). There is no waste, and it is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and resource 'InfoAddict services.'

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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It mentions the read-only summary and canonical page. The output schema exists, so return values are likely documented. For a simple service listing, this is adequate.

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 0 parameters, so there is no semantic burden on the description. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the description confirms the action. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is sufficient, mentioning the canonical page.

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 a read-only summary of InfoAddict services and the canonical services page. It is specific about the resource (InfoAddict services) and the action (return a summary), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_contact_options and get_site_guide by focusing on services. However, it could be more explicit about what 'summary' includes, but overall it's 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?

The description implies usage when a user wants InfoAddict services info, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives. Given siblings like assess_infoaddict_engagement_fit and get_site_guide, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over others. The read-only nature implies safe use, but no exclusionary guidance is 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?

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.