Lordevo Agent Directory

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 only that the response is the 'full details' of the record, implying richer output than search results, but says nothing about error behavior for a bad id or output structure.

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 short sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, with every clause earning its place through the id-provenance hint.

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 tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential lookup context. Only the behavior on an invalid or missing id is left unstated.

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 0% and the schema only types id as a string with no description. The description partially compensates by stating the id is a listing id obtained from search_services, which is genuine added meaning, but gives no format or failure semantics for the 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?

States a specific resource (one listing) and a specific retrieval scope (full details by id), which an agent can distinguish from search_services and list_categories. It is clear but the verb is nominal ('full details of') rather than an explicit 'retrieve/fetch', so it falls just 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 parenthetical '(from search_services)' tells the agent the id originates from a prior search call, establishing a clear use context. It does not state when not to use it or what to do if the id is unknown, so no explicit alternatives are offered.

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 structurally. The description adds that each entry carries a listing count, which is genuinely useful return-shape context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the directory is scoped to a workspace.

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 short sentence fragment with no padding; the useful detail (listing counts) is front-loaded alongside the resource. Brevity is appropriate, though it shades into under-specification.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return shape (categories plus counts). It stops short of telling the agent what the directory scope is or how results are ordered, which an agent would plausibly want before choosing this over search_services.

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 zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and nothing is misstated.

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 the resource (categories in the directory) and one attribute of the return (listing counts), so an agent can infer it enumerates categories. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no explicit statement that it 'lists' anything, and it never contrasts itself with the sibling tools (get_service, search_services) beyond the obvious resource difference.

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 on when to use this tool versus get_service or search_services, and no context about prerequisite steps or what the counts mean. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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 'Read-only' merely restates that. The useful added context is the return shape (endpoint, price, payment method, auth, docs), which is valuable since no output schema exists, but nothing about ranking, result caps, or coverage of the directory 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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first states what can be searched, the second what comes back, and the read-only note is tacked on last. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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?

Listing the returned fields compensates for the absent output schema and the read-only profile is covered by annotations, but with six parameters at 33% schema coverage the definition leaves the agent guessing about the filter parameters it will need to call this 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 only 33% — q and max_price are documented in-schema while kind, payment, category, and limit are bare. The description names none of these filters and gives no guidance on how keyword matching interacts with them, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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?

Names a specific verb (Find) and an unusually concrete resource inventory: APIs, x402 pay-per-call endpoints (USDC on Base), and MCP servers, matched by keyword. It is clearly a broad search rather than a single-record fetch like get_service or a taxonomy listing like list_categories, though it does not name those siblings 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?

The keyword-search framing implies when this tool applies, and 'find' vs. the sibling name get_service hints at browse-then-fetch, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or hand-off guidance is given.

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