mcp-revenue-empire — Japan public-data ledgers

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

The description implies a read operation ('Query') but no annotations are present. It lacks details on side effects, authorization, rate limits, or any behavioral traits. The description carries the full burden and barely addresses it.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It earns its place by being direct, but could be improved with more context.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not specify return format, pagination, default behavior for omitted parameters, or the scope of 'agent actions'. This leaves the agent to guess critical details.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter explanations. While parameter names like 'agentId', 'riskMin' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description ('with filters') does not clarify formats, allowed values, or relationships, leaving ambiguity.

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 action ('Query') and the resource ('agent actions'), and hints at filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_audit_record and agent_audit_report by specifying 'query' rather than record or report.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'record', implying write operations. It does not mention idempotency, rate limits, permissions, or data retention. The description is too brief.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary details, making it insufficient for an AI agent to understand usage without additional context.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, workflows, or error conditions, leaving critical gaps.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 7 parameters (e.g., agentId, actionType). The enum for actionType is not described. The description adds no value to 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'record' and the resource 'agent action' with the purpose 'for audit and compliance'. It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools agent_audit_query and agent_audit_report.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_audit_query or agent_audit_report. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions.

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or limitations. The agent gains no insight into what happens during report generation or any constraints.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence. It front-loads the purpose and includes the key format detail. While it lacks structure, it does not waste words, though it could be longer to cover missing aspects.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the report contains, how the date range works, any required prerequisites, or the nature of the output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the 'format' parameter by listing its enum values in parentheses. The other three parameters (agentId, from, to) are not explained, leaving their semantics unclear beyond their names.

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 states 'Generate audit report' which provides a verb and resource, but it is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like agent_audit_query or agent_audit_record. The mention of formats adds some clarity but the overall purpose is not specific enough.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about use cases, preconditions, or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool returns a token, failure modes, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond permission. This is insufficient for an agent to use safely.

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 with no wasted words, but it is too terse and omits essential information. Conciseness is not beneficial at the expense of completeness.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, return values, prerequisites, and error handling.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (type, action, pageUrl, siteKey, question, imageBase64), leaving the agent to guess their meanings. This is a critical 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?

The description explicitly states the action ('Solve') and the resource ('CAPTCHA'), and adds a condition ('for a domain you own or have explicit permission to access'), making it distinct from sibling tools like agent_captcha_verify_domain.

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 only when the agent has permission, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like agent_captcha_verify_domain or clarify when not to use this tool. Some context is given, but no direct 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?

No annotations provided; description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as state changes, idempotency, or error handling. Minimal info beyond the name.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, but too brief for adequate guidance. Conciseness trade-off reduces information density.

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?

No output schema, no parameter help, and minimal context. Missing details on return values, errors, or method specifics. Incomplete for effective tool use.

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 description does not elaborate on any parameters. No explanation of 'domain' format or 'method' enum values, leaving agent without guidance.

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?

Description clearly states it verifies domain ownership as a prerequisite for CAPTCHA solving. Verb 'verify ownership' and resource 'domain' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling 'agent_captcha_solve' implicitly by different action.

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?

Implied use before CAPTCHA solving, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Missing context on method selection or prerequisites.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions ordering and ownership restriction, but omits authentication needs, response format, pagination details, and what constitutes an 'activity record.' This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 clear sentence, front-loading the verb and resource. No unnecessary words; every part 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to cover essential context such as response format, error conditions, pagination behavior beyond limit, authentication prerequisites, and the nature of 'activity records.' The agent would lack confidence in using this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds context for 'identityId' (the identity whose activities are listed) and implies ordering, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter. It partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it lists activity records for an identity with newest-first ordering and scope restricted to owner. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also list data, though the specific resource 'identity activities' and constraint 'owner only' provide reasonable clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_identity_lookup or agent_identity_record. The phrase 'owner only' implies self-service but does not explain prerequisites or compare to other tools.

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?

Without annotations, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only. Only one sentence is provided.

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 (one sentence) but lacks structure and important details, making it under-specified for a tool with one parameter.

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 no output schema and one parameter, the description does not explain the return format, possible errors, or the scope of the badge data, leaving significant gaps.

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 single parameter 'identityId' has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not add any meaning beyond its type or required status.

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 retrieves an 'issuer-signed badge and signed fields for an identity', which is a specific action distinct from related sibling tools like agent_identity_lookup or agent_identity_record.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for invocation.

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 reveals an important behavioral trait: that signatureValid is 'NOT an authenticity/safety signal,' only issuer+integrity validation. This is valuable context. However, without annotations, it does not disclose other behaviors such as auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, which are especially needed for a lookup 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?

The description is very concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds information. It could be slightly more structured, but for a simple tool this is efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should clarify the return structure (e.g., fields of disclaimer). It also fails to address integration with sibling tools. The one-parameter tool is underexplained, leaving gaps for correct usage.

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 only parameter 'identityId' is a required string with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description adds no explanation of what an identityId is, what format to use, or where to obtain it. The agent must guess the meaning, critically hampering correct invocation.

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's action ('Look up an identity') and specifies its outputs (signatureValid with caveat, and disclaimer). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'agent_identity_record' or 'agent_identity_badge', which might also perform lookups on identities.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons to other identity-related tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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, the description discloses optional self-reported provenance and hash-chaining. However, it omits details like append-only behavior, immutability, or effects of omitting optional fields.

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 with two brief statements. It is front-loaded with the primary action, though the structure is slightly fragmented.

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?

Lacks output schema and does not describe return value. Given 4 parameters (2 required), low schema coverage, and nested objects, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 25% (only provenance has a description). The description adds that provenance is self-reported, but adds nothing for identityId, activityType, or content, leaving their meaning ambiguous.

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 it appends a hash-chained activity record restricted to the owner. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like agent_identity_activities or agent_audit_record.

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 mentions 'owner only' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., agent_audit_record). No explicit when-not-to-use or context for selection.

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 notes that agent_name/metadata are self-reported and unverified, adding transparency about data trustworthiness. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., if registration is idempotent or destructive) and does not disclose any required permissions or rate limits, which is important given no 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 two-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded: the first sentence conveys the core purpose, and the second adds a critical caveat without redundancy. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and three parameters including a nested object, the description does not explain the return format (what constitutes the ID and badge) or handle edge cases like duplicate agent names. It lacks detail on whether publicKey is optional or required, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use the tool confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by clarifying that agentName and metadata are self-reported and unverified. However, the publicKey parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose ambiguous despite being listed in 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'register', the resource 'an agent', and the outcomes 'get a unique identity ID + issuer-signed badge'. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from sibling identity tools like lookup or badge retrieval.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agent_identity_lookup for existing agents). The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'delete' without mentioning irreversibility, authorization requirements, or side effects on other memories.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but lacks structured detail. Could be expanded with key usage instructions without becoming verbose.

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?

Without output schema, param descriptions, or annotations, the description fails to fully inform an agent about the tool's behavior and requirements. Missing details like return value, error conditions, and whether deletion is permanent.

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 description adds minimal param insight. It implies 'key' is for a single memory and 'namespace' for all memories, but does not explain the required 'agentId' parameter or format expectations.

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 states 'Delete a memory or all memories in a namespace' which clearly identifies the action (delete) and the resource (memory/namespace). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like agent_memory_store or agent_memory_search.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_memory_store or agent_memory_delete. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. Minimal behavioral info.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words. However, it may be too brief for full clarity.

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 simple retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it does not mention what the tool returns (the memory value) or the optional namespace parameter.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no explanation for the three parameters (key, agentId, namespace). The schema itself provides names but no semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'stored memory', and specifies the lookup method 'by key', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_memory_search.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agent_memory_search or agent_memory_store. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. The agent receives no informative context beyond the basic operation name.

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 short sentence, which is concise but not well-structured. It lacks front-loading of critical information and uses one vague phrase ('by prefix, tags, or type') to cover multiple parameters.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return format, default behavior, required fields, or edge cases like missing optional parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions three parameters (prefix, tags, type). It omits important parameters like limit, namespace, and agentId, and does not explain how multiple criteria combine or the meaning of namespace. This adds minimal value over 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches memories and specifies search criteria (prefix, tags, or type). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like agent_memory_get or agent_memory_store, leaving ambiguity about when to use this search tool vs. others.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description implies that searching by prefix, tags, or type is appropriate, but it does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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 stores key-value pairs with TTL and metadata, but it does not specify behavior on duplicate keys, success confirmation, or error handling. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the verb and purpose. It is concise and contains no extraneous information.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is too brief. It omits important context such as success response, error conditions, idempotency, and timezone handling for TTL, making it incomplete for fully informed agent use.

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 only 33% (value and agentId have descriptions; key, metadata, namespace, ttlSeconds lack descriptions). The description adds 'key-value, with TTL and metadata' but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema. It fails to fully compensate for the coverage 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?

The description clearly states the action (Store), the resource (memory for an AI agent), and key attributes (key-value, TTL, metadata). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_memory_get, agent_memory_delete, and agent_memory_search.

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 storing a memory but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use agent_memory_get or agent_memory_delete). No when-not or context for selection is given.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions 'robots.txt enforced' as a key behavioral trait, but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or data format. Partial transparency; could be more detailed.

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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and key features. Highly efficient.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. Does not explain return values, how rotating proxy works, error handling, or robots.txt enforcement mechanism. Incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It references 'region/type selectable' clarifying those parameters, but does not explain other parameters like body, method, headers, sessionId. Inadequate for full parameter understanding.

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 'Fetch a URL via a rotating proxy' with specific resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_proxy_session which manages proxy sessions.

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 use for fetching URLs with proxy rotation and robots.txt compliance, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison to alternatives like direct fetch tools. Sibling list doesn't show similar fetch tools, reducing need for exclusion but still lacking directiveness.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'sticky' and 'same IP' but lacks details on session lifecycle, limits, cost, or behavior on failure. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single clear sentence, front-loaded with the core functionality. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Does not explain parameter options (e.g., enum values), default TTL, or return value. Incomplete for practical use.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in schema. Description entirely omits explanation of 'type', 'region', and 'ttlSeconds' parameters. Fails to add 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a sticky proxy session with the same IP for multiple requests. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tool agent_proxy_fetch likely fetches a single proxy, so differentiation is implicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The term 'sticky' implies persistent IP, which suggests usage for scenarios needing consistent IP, but no when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'auto-expires' but does not state what happens upon expiry (e.g., deletion, inaccessibility), default TTL, or any side effects. The agent is left unaware of important behaviors.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. However, it is too minimal; it could include parameter hints or return type without becoming verbose. The conciseness sacrifices necessary information.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns (e.g., created email address, ID) and how parameters affect behavior. It lacks these details, making it incomplete for proper invocation.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no textual descriptions. The description fails to explain the two parameters (ttlSeconds, preferredPrefix) or their roles. Without this, the agent cannot correctly fill optional parameters.

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 action (create) and resource (temporary email address), and the auto-expiry detail adds specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_tempmail_get, agent_tempmail_list, and agent_tempmail_wait.

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 obtaining a disposable email, but does not specify when to use or when not to use, nor does it mention alternatives like agent_tempmail_get or agent_tempmail_list for existing addresses.

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the message is not found. For a read operation, it would be helpful to mention that it is non-destructive.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose, but it lacks detail that would make it more helpful.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return format and parameter semantics. It only mentions 'extracted verification links/codes', leaving the agent unaware of the full response structure.

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 descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), and the description does not explain what mailboxId, messageId, or includeRaw mean. This forces the agent to rely solely on parameter names, which may be ambiguous.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full message content with extracted verification links/codes', distinguishing it from sibling tools like agent_tempmail_list (which lists messages) and agent_tempmail_create (which creates mailboxes).

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the name and context imply it is the tool for retrieving full message content, unlike agent_tempmail_list which only lists headers.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list received messages' without mentioning rate limits, sorting, response format, or handling of empty mailboxes. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 short sentence, achieving conciseness. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for completeness, making it borderline under-specified.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain pagination, default behavior, or what fields are returned. A list tool requires more context to use effectively.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any parameter. The required 'mailboxId' and optional 'after' and 'limit' are not mentioned or explained. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('received messages in a mailbox'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_tempmail_get (retrieve single message) and agent_tempmail_create (create mailbox), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 listing all messages in a mailbox, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_tempmail_get or agent_tempmail_wait. No exclusion criteria or context 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It states 'long polling' and 'max 60s', but does not explain what happens on timeout (e.g., returns null, throws error), whether it waits for a specific message, or what the return format is. Critical behavioral aspects are omitted.

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 very short, which is efficient, but at the expense of necessary details. It conveys the core function concisely, but could sacrifice some brevity for clarity on parameters and behavior.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain long polling mechanics, timeout interaction, filtering parameters, or return values. Agents lack sufficient context to invoke 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning to parameters. It ignores mailboxId (required), fromContains, subjectContains filters, and timeoutSeconds (default 30) beyond the vague 'max 60s'. No parameter semantics are provided, leaving agents to guess the use of filtering fields.

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 action 'Wait for an incoming message' and the resource (tempmail). The parenthetical 'long polling, max 60s' adds timing context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_tempmail_get (retrieve specific) and agent_tempmail_list (list all), so purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_tempmail_get or agent_tempmail_list. It does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid using it, or how it differs from polling manually. Without such guidance, agents may misuse it.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions the batch limit but does not disclose read-only nature, error handling, or permissions required. This is insufficient for a tool 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and constraint. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 complexity of the parameter (array of objects with no description) and no output schema, the description lacks essential context for correct usage. It does not explain the return format or how to structure the input objects.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the 'subjects' parameter. The schema shows an array of objects with 'type' and 'value' but the description does not explain what these fields represent, forcing the agent to guess.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'trust scores for multiple subjects', and a key constraint 'max 100'. It differentiates from the sibling 'agent_trust_score' which handles single subjects.

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 batch use for multiple subjects up to 100, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative single-subject tool. Sibling tools exist but no direct guidance is given.

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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., update of trust scores), required authentication, rate limits, or what happens upon duplicate submissions. The description is too minimal.

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, which is concise but at the expense of necessary information. It is not verbose, but it is under-informative for a 5-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 complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or usage constraints (e.g., uniqueness of feedback). It fails to provide a complete picture.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It fails to do so; e.g., it does not clarify the meaning of the rating scale (-2 to 2), the categories, or the evidence object structure. The schema enums provide some clarity but the description adds no value.

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 action ('submit') and the resource ('feedback about an agent/wallet'), and hints at the rating dimension ('positive or negative'). It is distinct from sibling tools like agent_trust_score (query) and agent_trust_batch (batch operations). However, it could be more explicit that this is for individual feedback submission.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agent_trust_batch for multiple feedbacks). There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool gets a trust score, with no mention of what happens if the subject is not found, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 with no extraneous words. It front-loads the main action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter guidance without losing conciseness.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or when to include details. For a tool with moderate complexity, this lacks 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 0% description coverage for parameters, meaning the schema provides no text explanations. The description adds minimal value: it lists the three subject types (already in the enum) but does not clarify the format for subjectValue (e.g., wallet address, URL format) or the meaning of includeDetails. It mostly restates what the schema already shows.

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's purpose: 'Get trust score for a wallet, agent card URL, or domain'. It specifies a verb ('Get') and a resource ('trust score') while listing the three possible subject types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_trust_batch or agent_trust_feedback.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agent_trust_batch for bulk queries, agent_trust_feedback for submitting feedback). There is no mention of prerequisites or 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool creates a webhook, but does not reveal side effects, persistence, authentication requirements, or error states. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 short sentence, but given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, it is severely under-specified. Conciseness is valued, but not at the cost of missing essential information.

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 complex (6 parameters, nested objects) yet the description provides almost no useful context. No output schema, no error handling, no usage scenarios. It fails to equip the agent for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters, including the required 'deliveryMode' and the nested object 'transformRules'. The agent receives no semantic help beyond the schema types.

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 creates a webhook endpoint that relays requests to an agent. It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (webhook endpoint), and is distinct from sibling webhook tools which handle listing, polling, and replaying.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as agent_webhook_list_requests or agent_webhook_poll. There are no explicit conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but only states 'list requests', implying read-only without detailing pagination, rate limits, or error handling.

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 with no redundant words, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete, lacking information on pagination, required fields, defaults, and return structure.

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 0% and the description does not explain any parameters (endpointId, limit, offset), leaving their purpose unclear beyond field names.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'requests received by a webhook endpoint', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, poll, and replay.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agent_webhook_poll or agent_webhook_replay, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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?

Discloses long polling behavior and 60-second timeout, but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or return behavior. With no annotations, description carries full burden and is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key behavior (long polling, max 60s). No fluff, every word 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?

Tool has no output schema, but description does not indicate what is returned (e.g., list of requests). Also fails to describe parameter details or usage context, leaving agent with incomplete understanding.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description only notes 'long polling, max 60s' which relates to timeout but does not explain 'after', 'limit', or 'endpointId' semantics. Fails to compensate for low schema 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Poll' and resource 'webhook requests' with specific behavior 'long polling, max 60s'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_webhook_create and agent_webhook_list_requests.

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?

Implies usage for polling new requests with long polling, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives such as agent_webhook_list_requests.

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?

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., does it resend the request?), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise at five words, which is efficient. However, it may be too minimal, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It front-loads the purpose well.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters with zero description, the tool definition is severely incomplete. The description does not cover return values, parameter details, or behavior, leaving major gaps for agent usage.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (endpointId, requestId, toUrl). The agent must infer their roles from names only, which may be ambiguous without further 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 'Replay a stored webhook request' clearly states the action (replay) and resource (webhook request). It distinguishes from siblings like agent_webhook_create and agent_webhook_list_requests by implying repetition of a past request. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are provided. The one-sentence description offers no usage direction.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions returned fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but does not disclose full response or behavioral traits like side effects or authentication.

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?

Description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded, but it omits important details about the parameter and full output, making it under-specified.

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 simple tool with one param and no output schema, the description lacks explanation of the param and complete return values, leaving gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage and only one parameter (itemId). Description provides no explanation of what itemId means or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves bid notice details and full event timeline, specifying returns. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like bid_watch_search or bid_watch_timeline.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or 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?

No annotations exist, so the description is the sole source. It discloses returning events with firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified, but omits details like ordering, pagination, data freshness, or whether the operation is read-only. The information is adequate but not thorough.

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 that are front-loaded with the action and scope. No redundant words. Every sentence provides value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality and return fields but omits details about the 'entity' parameter and pagination behavior. It is minimally viable but has gaps.

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 0%. The description only explains the 'since' parameter as an ISO8601 timestamp. The 'limit' and 'entity' parameters are not mentioned, leaving their semantics unclear. This is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 recent events (appearance, deadline-move, close, cancel, award) across all bid notices since a timestamp. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bid_watch_search and bid_watch_timeline by focusing on recent changes across all bids.

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 guidance on when to use versus alternatives. However, the description implies usage for monitoring recent bid changes from a timestamp. Sibling names provide context, but the description lacks direct comparisons or exclusion criteria.

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, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Search' (implying read-only) and mentions two output fields, but omits other behavioral traits like pagination, result limits, authentication needs, or rate limits. The minimal detail does not adequately disclose the tool's behavior.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail. It earns its keep but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain parameter interactions, expected outcomes, or domain-specific nuances (e.g., Japanese language handling). The output mention is helpful but insufficient.

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 low (33%), yet the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond repeating tool purpose. Parameters like limit, since, status are not explained, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance on their semantics or usage.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Japanese public-procurement bid notices (kkj.go.jp)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like bid_watch_get, bid_watch_recent_changes, etc. The mention of the specific site and output fields adds clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any usage context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like bid_watch_get for specific bid retrieval. The agent is left to infer from the tool name alone.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the output includes time-ordered events and specific fields, but does not clarify what happens if the itemId is invalid, whether the tool is read-only, or any rate limits. It is partially transparent but not complete.

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 sentences, tightly packed with key information. It front-loads the core differentiator and lists event types succinctly. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description should describe the return format more fully. It mentions fields but not structure (e.g., list of events with timestamps). It provides essential context but is incomplete for a parameter-only 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?

With only one parameter (itemId) and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning. The context implies itemId is a bid notice ID, but the description does not explicitly define it or provide format expectations. It barely adds value 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns time-ordered events for a bid notice, listing specific event types (appeared, deadline moved, closed, cancelled, awarded) and fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified). This distinguishes it from siblings like bid_watch_get or bid_watch_recent_changes.

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 hints at its unique purpose by saying 'the differentiator', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for other scenarios.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the action (hash-chain integrity verification) and the return fields (chainValid, brokenAt, etc.). However, it does not mention whether it is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 followed by a list of return fields. It is concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet list). Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple tool with one input parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and explicitly lists return fields. However, it lacks input parameter format details and any context about constraints or edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'itemId' parameter beyond being required; no format, example, or context is given. The description focuses on return values, leaving parameter meaning under-defined.

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 verb 'verify', the resource 'hash-chain integrity of a bid notice', and the purpose 'tamper detection'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings (other watch_verify_ledger tools for different types) by specifying 'bid notice'.

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 verifying integrity of bid notices but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. Among siblings, there are many verify_ledger tools, but no differentiation criteria are given.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. No mention of side effects or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundant words. Every sentence adds value by stating the action and key returned fields.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return fields but omits the full response structure, event timeline format, or any usage constraints.

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 has one parameter 'itemId' with no description; schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'grant call' but does not explicitly define 'itemId' as the grant call ID, leaving ambiguity.

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's action ('Get') and resource ('grant call detail plus full event timeline'), and mentions specific returned fields. It distinguishes from siblings like grant_watch_timeline by combining detail and timeline, though no explicit differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., grant_watch_timeline, grant_watch_recent_changes). No context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions time filtering and output fields but omits details about filtering by funder, limit, field parameter, ordering, pagination, or error states. There is inconsistency: description says 'across all grant calls' but schema includes a funder parameter, implying filtering.

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, consisting of two sentences that quickly convey the tool's purpose and key output fields. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain parameter behavior, return format beyond two fields, ordering, pagination, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use 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 description only references the 'since' parameter indirectly ('given ISO8601 timestamp'). It does not explain the meaning or usage of 'field', 'limit', or 'funder' parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. This leaves the agent unable to effectively use these parameters.

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 recent events (appearance, deadline-move, close, close-early) across all grant calls since a given timestamp, and mentions output fields. It differentiates from sibling watch tools by focusing on recent changes rather than single items, searches, or timelines.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like grant_watch_search or grant_watch_timeline. The description only states what it does without providing context for selection conditions or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that results include firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified (hash-chain integrity), hinting at data provenance. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. Given zero annotation support, this is minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The first sentence states the action and domain, the second adds a key result detail. No wasted words; 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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, a comprehensive description should cover search behavior, parameter meaning, and output format. The description only vaguely mentions search and two result fields. It is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional assumptions or external knowledge.

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?

Only 2 of 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (field, funder), resulting in 29% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter information whatsoever. It does not explain query, limit, since, status, or amountMin, which are left entirely to the schema's minimal or missing descriptions. Thus the description fails to compensate for low schema 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 'Search' and the resource 'Japanese research-grant calls-for-proposals', clearly differentiating from sibling watch_search tools that target different domains (e.g., bid_watch_search, license_watch_search). It also adds specific detail about hit contents (firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description implies usage for searching Japanese grants, but does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools for similar searches. Among siblings, each is target-specific, but the description does not help an agent decide between grant_watch_search and other search tools.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns time-ordered events and includes specific fields, but does not disclose whether it is a read operation, authorization needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 description covers the tool's main function and output fields, but lacks details on output format, ordering, or any example events. For a simple 1-param tool with no output schema, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 description does not explicitly explain what itemId represents. While context implies it is the grant call ID, the description fails to define the parameter's format, purpose, or constraints.

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 time-ordered events for a grant call, specifically mentioning opening, deadline changes, closure, and early closure. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'grant call' and listing the event types.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like grant_watch_get or grant_watch_recent_changes. The description implies it's for timeline viewing but does not provide context for when each should be used.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It describes the operation as verification, strongly suggesting read-only and non-destructive behavior, but does not explicitly state this. It also fails to mention any required permissions or side effects. For a verification tool, it is plausible but not guaranteed to be safe.

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, focused sentence that concisely states the purpose and the return fields. It contains no fluff or redundancy. Every word 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 is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and expected outputs. It lacks an explanation of where the itemId comes from (e.g., grant_watch_get) or an example, but overall provides sufficient context for a basic integration.

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 description adds meaning to the singular parameter 'itemId' by indicating it identifies a 'grant call'. This clarifies the schema beyond its bare type definition. However, it does not provide format details (e.g., numeric ID, UUID) or source (e.g., from grant_watch_get). With 0% schema coverage, this additional context is helpful but incomplete.

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's purpose: 'Verify the hash-chain integrity of a grant call (tamper detection).' The verb 'verify' and resource 'grant call' are specific. The list of return fields further clarifies. Sibling tools like other verify_ledger tools are distinguished by the 'grant' prefix.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for verification of grant integrity, but does not specify scenarios (e.g., after fetching a grant) or contrast with other verify tools. The lack of when-not-to-use or prerequisite context leaves the agent to infer usage.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions returned fields but not safety (read-only), error handling, or authorization requirements. For a missing annotations scenario, this is insufficient.

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 very short and front-loaded, with two clear sentences. It is efficient but could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and some return fields. However, it lacks explanation of the parameter and error behavior, making it adequate but not fully 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?

The single parameter itemId has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explicitly explain what itemId represents (e.g., the license identifier). It adds minimal meaning beyond the name.

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 retrieves a license registration detail plus full event timeline, and mentions specific return fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified). It distinguishes from siblings like license_watch_search or license_watch_timeline by focusing on a single item retrieval.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., search, timeline, recent changes). The name and description imply single-item retrieval, but lack direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It states read-only behavior (listing events) and return fields, but omits details on pagination, ordering, and idempotency. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with no filler. First sentence captures main purpose, second adds return field details. Efficient.

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?

Covers core functionality but lacks details on limit behavior, registry parameter, and differentiation from sibling timeline/search tools. No output schema, so description carries more weight yet leaves gaps.

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% so description must compensate. Only 'since' parameter is explained; 'limit' and 'registry' are not mentioned despite having defaults and potential filtering role.

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?

Clearly states it returns recent appearance/revoked/suspended events across all license ledgers since a given timestamp, specifying included fields. Distinguishes from siblings like license_watch_get (single license) and license_watch_search (filtered).

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?

Implies use when needing recent changes across all ledgers after a timestamp, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternatives like license_watch_timeline or license_watch_search.

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?

No annotations provided; description partially compensates by noting output fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but does not disclose safety, side effects, or if it's read-only. Minimal behavioral context.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant text. Efficient and easy to parse.

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 search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, description provides only the purpose and two output fields. Lacks detail on pagination, result format, or parameter interactions. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Description adds no parameter information beyond schema; does not explain query syntax, limit behavior, or semantics of status/since. With 50% schema coverage, description should compensate but does not.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches Japanese license/registration ledgers (FSA menkyo) with examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools targeting other domains. Verb 'Search' and resource are specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like license_watch_get or license_watch_recent_changes. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions included fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but omits important details: read-only nature, error handling for invalid itemId, pagination, ordering, or limits. Incomplete for agent decision-making.

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?

Efficient two-sentence structure with no fluff. Front-loads the purpose and key differentiators. However, could be improved by adding parameter or output hints without increasing length significantly.

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?

Despite low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects), the description lacks essential completeness: no output schema description, no explanation of event fields beyond two mentioned, no usage context. Leaves gaps for the agent.

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 description does not explain the itemId parameter. It fails to map the parameter to the license registration identifier, leaving the agent to infer from context. No added meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool provides time-ordered events for a license registration, listing specific event types (appeared, revoked, expired, suspended). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling timeline tools, the resource name 'license' and unique focus on registration events set it apart.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies timeline usage but doesn't contrast with license_watch_get, license_watch_search, or sibling timeline tools. Lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation as verification (likely read-only) and lists return fields, but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists return fields. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 description covers the main purpose and return fields, but lacks parameter explanation, output types, and error or prerequisite information. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not fully 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?

The single required parameter 'itemId' is not explained in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the agent must infer its meaning from the tool name and description context, which is insufficient.

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 it verifies hash-chain integrity for tamper detection on license registrations, and lists the return fields. The name includes 'license_watch', distinguishing it from sibling verify_ledger tools for other domains.

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 verifying ledger integrity of a license registration, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other license_watch tools (e.g., get, search) or alternatives.

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?

No annotations provided. The description implies read-only behavior through the name 'get' but does not explicitly confirm safety, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Missing contextual details.

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, 16 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action and key return fields. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description only mentions two return fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) while also claiming a 'full event timeline' without elaboration. The agent lacks sufficient detail on the response structure to reliably extract needed data.

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 single parameter itemId is not described beyond its name in the schema, and the description does not explain its purpose or format (e.g., how to obtain the ID). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate.

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 it gets ordinance detail plus full event timeline, distinguishing it from search and timeline siblings. However, it does not differentiate from other domain-specific get tools (e.g., grant_watch_get) beyond the name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ordinance_watch_search or ordinance_watch_timeline. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for use.

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?

Without annotations, description carries burden. Discloses output fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) and event types, but lacks details on ordering, pagination, data freshness, or side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 no output schema and sparse descriptions for 3 parameters, the description covers basic operation and output fields but misses parameter details and behavioral context like ordering or pagination.

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%, so description must compensate. Only 'since' is described as ISO8601 timestamp; 'limit' and 'issuerCode' are not explained. Default for limit (100) is not mentioned.

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?

Description clearly states it returns recent appearance, amendment, or repeal events for ordinances since an ISO8601 timestamp. It specifies verb (recent changes) and resource (ordinances), differentiating from sibling tools like get, search, timeline, verify.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ordinance_watch_search or ordinance_watch_timeline. Implied use for time-based recent changes, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions result fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but fails to state idempotency, rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior—critical for an agent invoking a search 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant or verbose language. Every sentence 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?

The description gives the scope and source but omits details on result structure, pagination, error handling, and parameter usage. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient for full autonomous use.

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 57%, but the description does not add any parameter explanations beyond what is already in the schema. For example, it does not explain the 'since', 'status', or 'limit' parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.

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?

Explicitly states 'Search Japanese national laws / ordinances', identifies the data source (e-Gov v2), and distinguishes from sibling tools focused on other domains (bids, grants, etc.). The description clearly indicates the resource and action.

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?

Provides usage context: 'Stage 1 covers the national level only' and mentions that local ordinances will be available in a follow-up. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool vs. waiting for future tools, but does not explicitly contrast with other search tools.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions output fields but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The behavioral profile is incomplete for an agent to use safely.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and differentiator. Every word adds value, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the minimum. It mentions included fields but does not specify the full response structure or event format. For a timeline tool, more context on output shape would be beneficial, but it is adequate for an agent familiar with similar watch tools.

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 only parameter, 'itemId', is not described in the description. Schema coverage is 0%. While the tool name implies it is an ordinance identifier, the description adds no extra meaning or guidance on format or source for this 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides time-ordered events for an ordinance, including specific events (appeared, amended, repealed) and fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ordinance_watch_get' which presumably returns current state.

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 phrase 'the differentiator' hints at when to use this vs other ordinance tools, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'ordinance_watch_get' or 'ordinance_watch_search'. The description lacks clarity on prerequisites or exclusions.

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?

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It lists return fields but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond output schema.

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?

Description is extremely concise (one sentence covering purpose and key return fields) with no wasted words. Front-loaded with primary verb and object.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function and return values. However, it lacks parameter clarification and usage context, making it minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and description does not explain the meaning of itemId. The parameter is left undefined, forcing the agent to infer from context. Should clarify that itemId identifies the ordinance record.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Verify' and specific resource 'hash-chain integrity of an ordinance record (tamper detection)', clearly distinguishing from sibling verify_ledger tools by specifying 'ordinance record'.

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/when-not guidance or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied (when needing tamper detection), but no exclusions or comparisons to related tools like ordinance_watch_get.

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, the description should convey behavioral traits. It only mentions return fields but leaves out safety (likely read-only), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

At two sentences, the description is highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently states what the tool does and returns, though additional context could be added without becoming verbose.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description lacks sufficient context: no differentiation from siblings, no parameter help, and no behavioral assurances. Incomplete for reliable agent decision-making.

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 sole parameter 'itemId' is not explained beyond its schema type. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning, such as its format or source (e.g., from search results). Agent must infer its purpose.

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 retrieves a pharmaceutical record detail and its full event timeline, specifying returned fields 'firstSeenAt' and 'ledgerVerified'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'pharma_watch_timeline' tool, which may also provide timeline data.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative siblings like 'pharma_watch_search', 'pharma_watch_timeline', or 'pharma_watch_verify_ledger'. Missing context on prerequisites or applicable scenarios.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It mentions the fields included (firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified) but lacks details on read-only nature, pagination limits, or rate limits. The description is partially transparent.

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 with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output fields.

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 partially covers return values by naming two fields, but does not explain full structure or behavior. For a tool with three parameters, the description is somewhat incomplete.

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 0%. The description only explains the 'since' parameter as an ISO8601 timestamp, while 'limit' and 'category' are not mentioned. This adds minimal value 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?

The description clearly states it returns recent approval, NHI-listed, and price-revised events for pharmaceutical records. It uses specific verbs and resource scope, and distinguishes from sibling tools like pharma_watch_get and pharma_watch_timeline.

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 specifies usage with an ISO8601 timestamp, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other similar recent changes tools. No alternatives are mentioned.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions output fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but omits many behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, query syntax, ordering, or default behavior. This leaves significant gaps for agents to handle correctly.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds output details. It is front-loaded and efficient, every word 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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks guidance on parameter usage, pagination, error responses, and behavioral constraints. The tool is relatively complex, and the description does not sufficiently prepare an agent to invoke it 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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what is in the schema; it does not explain limit, since, or status further. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, providing minimal added value.

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 action ('Search') and the specific resources ('Japanese pharmaceutical approvals (PMDA) and NHI-listed drugs (MHLW yakka)'). It also mentions that each hit includes 'firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified', adding clarity about output. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like pharma_watch_get (specific ID retrieval) or pharma_watch_timeline (history).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get, timeline, verify_ledger). While the verb 'Search' implies broad queries, no exclusion criteria or comparison is provided. The agent must infer based on the tool name, which is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions including 'firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any rate limits or side effects.

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 with a parenthetical addition, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the key events but does not fully specify the return structure (e.g., list of objects with fields). Adequate for a basic tool but could be more 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'itemId' with no description. The tool description does not clarify what 'itemId' refers to (e.g., a pharma record ID). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but adds minimal meaning.

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 it returns time-ordered events for a pharma record, specifying event types like approval, NHI-listing, and price revision. It distinguishes itself from other pharma tools by focusing on the timeline, but could be more explicit about the output format.

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 the tool (for timeline events), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like pharma_watch_get for current details.

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, the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists return fields but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The term 'verify' implies safety, but this is not explicit.

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 efficiently convey purpose and output. No redundant information. However, the brevity sacrifices some necessary detail, preventing a top score.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and return fields. Missing context includes parameter documentation, error handling, and explanation of terms like 'brokenAt' and 'ledgerVerified'.

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 single parameter 'itemId' is defined only by its type in the schema (string, required). The description provides no additional meaning, format, or usage example. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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's purpose: verifying hash-chain integrity of a pharma record for tamper detection. It specifies the action (verify), resource (pharma record), and domain (pharma), distinguishing it from other verify_ledger siblings like grant_watch_verify_ledger.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., pharma_watch_get for retrieval or pharma_watch_search for filtering). It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description gives minimal behavioral info: it returns two fields but does not state read-only behavior, error conditions, or authorization needs.

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 short (two sentences) but lacks structure; it could be improved by front-loading the parameter explanation and adding a brief usage note without extra length.

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 context of many sibling tools and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the event timeline content, how this tool relates to other pubcom tools, or any constraints.

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 a single `itemId` parameter with 0% coverage (no description). The tool description does not explain what `itemId` is or how to obtain it, leaving the agent guessing.

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 it retrieves public-comment notice detail plus full event timeline, and mentions specific return fields. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling `pubcom_watch_timeline`, which may also return timeline data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `pubcom_watch_timeline` or `pubcom_watch_search`. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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?

No annotations provided; description must disclose behavioral traits. Mentions returned fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but omits read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it fetches all events or paginated.

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?

Single informative sentence with key points: event types, input constraint, and output fields. Efficient but could be structured with separate lines for conciseness.

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?

No output schema; description incomplete regarding pagination, ordering, and full output structure. Lacks explanation of 'limit' default and 'agency' filtering behavior.

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 has 0% coverage; description explains 'since' as ISO8601 timestamp, but 'limit' and 'agency' are undocumented. Missing defaults and format details for these parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves recent change events (appearance, deadline-move, close, result-published) across all notices since a timestamp, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pubcom_watch_get (single notice) or pubcom_watch_search.

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 guidance on when to use this vs alternatives such as pubcom_watch_get, pubcom_watch_search, or pubcom_watch_timeline. Lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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 discloses that each hit includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified, adding some behavioral info. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention if the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or requires authentication.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core purpose and key output fields without any fluff.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient for reliable use. It lacks parameter guidance and comprehensive output details.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage and no additional parameter details in the description, the meaning of most parameters (limit, query, since, status) is unclear. The description does not compensate for this 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches e-Gov public-comment notices and mentions notable output fields, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling watch_search tools for other domains.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pubcom_watch_get or other watch_search tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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 mentions returned data (firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified) and event types, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, potential side effects, or any limitations. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides adequate but not thorough transparency.

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 with a parenthetical list, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description fails to provide enough context. It does not describe the output structure, ordering of events, or any constraints (e.g., date range). The agent is left with incomplete information to use the tool reliably.

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 sole parameter itemId is completely undocumented in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain what itemId represents (e.g., the notice ID), but it does not. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 it provides time-ordered events for a notice and lists event types (opened, deadline moved, closed, result published). It distinguishes from other watch_timeline siblings by the 'pubcom' prefix but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pubcom_watch_get.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need the event timeline for a specific public comment notice. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this over alternatives like pubcom_watch_get or pubcom_watch_recent_changes.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool verifies hash-chain integrity and returns specific fields, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state if it is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Adequate but could be clearer.

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: the first states the purpose, the second lists return fields. Highly concise, front-loaded with the key verb, and no wasted words. Every sentence 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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does and what it returns. It does not explain the concept of hash-chain integrity or specify that 'itemId' corresponds to the notice ID, but it is sufficient for basic use. A slight improvement would be to map the parameter.

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 one parameter 'itemId' with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'notice' but does not explicitly link it to 'itemId' or explain what value to provide. It adds some context but not enough to fully clarify parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Verify', the resource 'hash-chain integrity of a notice', and the purpose 'tamper detection'. It also lists return fields which confirms the tool's function. The domain 'pubcom' distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like 'bid_watch_verify_ledger'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tool name implies it is for pubcom notices, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided. The description lacks 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' instructions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions two returned fields but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, auth requirements, or any side effects.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. No wasted words, though it could add a tiny bit more context without harming brevity.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and the presence of many similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the event timeline structure or whether additional fields are returned.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the single parameter 'itemId'. It does not, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool name alone.

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 retrieves a recall detail plus full event timeline, and mentions specific return fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall_watch_timeline or recall_watch_search.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., when to prefer get over timeline or search. The description only hints at unique return fields but doesn't provide decision rules.

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?

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination, error handling, or rate limits. It only mentions the fields returned. More behavioral context is needed.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It is concise without extra words. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a sentence about parameters.

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 parameter count (3), no output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return structure beyond two fields, nor does it describe the effect of the 'limit' parameter. An agent would need more information to correctly use this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the 'since' parameter as an ISO8601 timestamp. The 'limit' and 'agency' parameters are not described, leaving the agent uncertain about their functionality. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 recent changes (appearance/severity-escalated events) for recalls, filtered by a given timestamp. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'recalls' in the tool name, but the description does not explicitly differentiate from other watch tools for different domains. However, the purpose is clear enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of other tools like recall_watch_get or recall_watch_timeline, nor any conditions for using this tool. The description lacks usage 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions two fields in results (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but omits key behavioral aspects: pagination, ordering, rate limits, authentication requirements, or handling of empty results. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a search 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value (scope and result fields). Appropriate length for a straightforward search 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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the search behavior, parameter interactions, or full return structure. While it mentions two fields, it lacks details on how to effectively use the tool, especially for non-obvious parameters like since or status.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 50% (3 of 6 params have descriptions in schema), but the tool description itself does not elaborate on any parameter. For the undocumented params (limit, since, status), no guidance is given.

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 searches Japanese product/food recall notices, specifying the resource (recall notices) and verb (Search). It distinguishes from sibling watch_search tools by nationality and domain. Additional context 'consumer-affairs-agency aggregator' clarifies the data source.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recall_watch_get or recall_watch_recent_changes. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from naming conventions.

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