LinkHatch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond that — the figure is non-binding and final prices depend on site approval. That caveat is useful, but the description says nothing about what the response contains (a total, a breakdown per item, currency) or how kind-specific parameters combine, which matters for a 7-parameter pricing tool.

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, front-loaded with what the tool produces, with zero filler. The second sentence is a caveat rather than a definition, but it still earns its place by warning that the number is not contractual.

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?

Only one parameter is required, but five others are conditionally relevant depending on kind, and the description never signals that the caller must supply kind plus kind-specific fields. The schema covers most of this gap (content_item and quantity say which kind they belong to), but plan and pr_item carry no such note in either place, so the definition is only adequate for a tool of this branching 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?

Schema description coverage is 71% and the enum descriptions are unusually rich — the kind enum spells out each product line and its pricing, addons explains credit consumption, credits and quantity state their constraints. The description adds nothing to any parameter. With coverage near the high band, the schema does the work and a 3 baseline 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 identifies a specific resource (an order's price) and a specific purpose (an indicative figure produced before purchase), which separates it from place_order. It never names either sibling, so the agent has to infer that get_catalog and place_order are the other options rather than being routed explicitly.

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?

'before placing it' implies the pre-purchase context and therefore an ordering relative to place_order, but there is no explicit "use this when… use X instead when…" statement. No prerequisites, no mention of what to do with the returned figure, and no exclusion cases.

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 the useful behavioral fact that prices are denominated in USD and that policy terms (billing, 6-month replacement, approval, exclusions) are included, but says nothing about whether the catalog is static or refreshed, or how results are shaped.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the most important item (services) is front-loaded. The long parenthetical list makes it slightly inventory-like, but every clause names distinct catalog content that matters.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the data categories returned (services, tiers, plans, rates, PR prices, policies). What's missing is any hint of structure or how the pieces relate, but for a zero-parameter read-only reference tool this is close to sufficient.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description does not waste effort re-describing an 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 is a noun-phrase inventory ('Services, link tiers..., monthly plans...') rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never explicitly says it *returns* the catalog. Combined with the name get_catalog, an agent can infer the purpose, but the description itself only enumerates contents.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: it never states that this is the reference-data source to consult before calling estimate_price or place_order, nor any preconditions. The sibling relationship is left entirely for the agent to infer.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the full lifecycle: an email goes to the owner, status is awaiting_confirmation, and 'nothing is placed, charged or sent to anyone until they press Confirm.' It also names the post-confirmation branches (reply with shortlist or quote; monthly plans go straight to Stripe checkout), which is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before a write call.

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 compact paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and the gating confirmation status before the branch details. The instruction to tell the user to watch for the email is slightly redundant with the preceding sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 21-parameter, non-idempotent, open-world write with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle well but omits several things an agent would want: which fields become required per kind, that site is needed for audit/plan, and when to reuse idempotency_key to avoid a duplicate confirmation email. Those gaps are real given the 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?

Schema description coverage is only 57% across 21 parameters, so the description should be compensating more. It does pick out `email` and ties kind-dependent behavior to monthly plans and Stripe, but the remaining parameters (idempotency_key, on_behalf_of, plan, pr_item, deadline, budget_usd) get no added meaning 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 and resource ('Send LinkHatch an order or request') and immediately explains what the order object represents, so an agent knows this is the submission entry point. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools estimate_price and get_catalog, which keeps it 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?

Gives a concrete precondition: 'Confirm the details with your user before calling, and tell them to look for the email.' That is real when/how guidance rather than a platitude. It never says when to call estimate_price or get_catalog first, so the alternative-routing half of the guideline is missing.

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