Mako Metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool does not take payment, that it returns a Stripe checkout link, and that after payment the customer gets an email within 24h and can download reports at a specific portal link. It is transparent about the post-payment workflow and what happens offline. It does not detail any side effects or failure modes, but the core behavioral disclosure is strong.

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 concise (three sentences plus a note about May) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value. However, the last sentence ('For May, the Meta ads agent...') could be restructured or moved to a separate usage note, but it does not detract significantly. It earns a 4 for being efficient and well-organized.

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 9 parameters, 6 required, no output schema, and moderate complexity (enums, array input), the description provides enough context to understand the purpose and workflow. It explains the output (Stripe link), the post-payment process, and the portal location. It does not describe the return format or handle failure cases, but for a creation tool that returns a link, the description is reasonably complete.

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 33% (only email, competitors, and client_account_name have descriptions). The tool description does not add parameter-level guidance beyond what is in the schema. The description does not help interpret enum values (plan, revenue_band, industry_vertical) or the purpose of notes, company_website, etc. However, the description provides high-level context for what the order is, which indirectly helps understand 'plan' and 'competitors'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden and the description does not significantly compensate for the low coverage.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Create a Mako Metrics order brief', identifies the resource ('customer order'), specifies the outcome ('return a Stripe checkout link'), and distinguishes the tool by noting it does not take payment. It also provides specific context for the sibling tool 'list_plans', which is likely a prerequisite, and addresses a separate use case for 'May, the Meta ads agent'.

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 clearly states when to use this tool ('Create a Mako Metrics order brief for a customer') and what it does not do ('No payment is taken by this tool. It only returns a pay link the human opens.'). It gives an explicit alternative use case ('For May, the Meta ads agent, send the customer to makometrics.com/meta-ads-agent') and implies the agent should not attempt payment or download—only create the brief and return the link.

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 no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it discloses that the tool covers competitor report plans and mentions a specific monthly engagement ('May, the Meta ads agent'), which gives helpful context beyond a simple list operation.

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 mostly concise with four sentences; the first two efficiently state function and usage, while the last adds context about a specific engagement, which, though slightly tangential, is still helpful for understanding the domain.

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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying what the list includes, why to use it, and how it relates to ordering, making it complete for a zero-parameter listing 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, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters but it adds value by describing the output content (pricing, what's included, scope limits, etc.), making it clear what information the list returns.

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 lists Mako Metrics plans with specific details (pricing, scope limits, delivery, guarantee, links), and distinguishes it from the only sibling 'create_order' by noting these plans are the products orderable through the server.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('to recommend a plan before ordering') and implies not to use it for other actions, fitting well with the sibling 'create_order' which would be used after selection.

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