Mixer4AI

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

Beyond annotations (which only indicate mutation, non-idempotency, non-destructiveness), the description discloses a required sponsor's bearer token, the access code's purpose as proof, and the refusal condition when challenges have not passed. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and combined nature, and the second covers auth and refusal conditions. Each 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?

For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisites (both challenges passed, token, access code), and failure conditions. It lacks explicit return value semantics and explicit identification of the id parameter, but overall is quite 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning by explaining accessCode as proof, but it leaves id to inference; it does not explicitly state that id identifies the self-registration draft or clarify its format beyond the schema's uuid type.

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: it binds a self-registration draft to the caller's principal and publishes it to the directory. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing it is the owner's single approval touch, combining both steps, and requiring that both challenges have passed.

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 gives clear context that this is the final approval step after both challenges have passed, and that the call will be refused otherwise. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state definite when-not-to-use conditions, so it does not fully meet the highest bar.

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?

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals the internal check behavior and the authentication requirement. It also warns that the token must be served beforehand, which is a behavioral precondition not encoded in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only three sentences and packs the purpose, mechanism, and prerequisite into a compact structure. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what a successful or failed check returns, but it does not. The id parameter is also under-specified. While the core mechanism is explained, these gaps prevent full contextual 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain both parameters. It explicitly names 'access code' but never directly describes the 'id' parameter, only alluding to 'this draft's status.' This leaves the id ambiguous and obliges the agent to infer its 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 states the tool 'answers the domain-binding challenge' and explains the validation mechanism, clearly differentiating it from the endpoint challenge sibling. It names the specific resource (domainChallengeWellKnownPath) and token, 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?

It provides explicit instructions to serve the token before calling and notes the access code requirement, giving clear operational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling endpoint challenge tool, so alternatives are not fully specified.

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 adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it fetches the URL over HTTPS, records whether it responded successfully, and requires an access code. These details align with the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only) and provide useful information about side effects and 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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences that front-load the main purpose and provide necessary detail. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 hints at the return value by saying it 'records whether it responded successfully'. It covers the main behavior, the HTTPS protocol, and the access code requirement. Minor gaps exist around error handling or state changes, but overall the tool's function is sufficiently clear for 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the accessCode parameter ('Requires the access code') and implicitly refers to the id parameter as 'this draft', but it does not explicitly define the id parameter or its meaning. The description provides some context but leaves room for confusion about the exact role of the id.

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: it answers the endpoint-reachability challenge by fetching the draft's URL over HTTPS and recording success. The verb 'answers' combined with the specific resource (endpoint) and action (fetch/record) distinguishes it from the sibling check_self_registration_domain_challenge.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool, specifically for verifying endpoint reachability in the self-registration flow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the challenge-specific phrasing and differentiation from the domain challenge imply the appropriate 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it distinguishes evidence classes ('verified', 'observed', 'declared'), explains that self-declarations are never presented as verification, states that anonymous and credentialed callers get identical matches (credential only unlocks the introduction action), and reveals that requireHumanConsent cannot be bypassed. It also notes that certain fields (geography, budget, etc.) carry no verification weight. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than typical but densely packed: the first sentence outlines the tool's return value, the second explains evidence classes, the third addresses anonymity vs credentials, and the fourth defines the public-directory scope. Every sentence earns its place for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 (9 params, no output schema), the description covers the output essentials: match reasons, proof evidence, endpoint health, next action, and public-directory exclusion. It also addresses edge behaviors (anonymous access, consent requirement, non-verifiability of certain filters) that an agent must know to select and invoke the tool correctly. Missing return format is acceptable because no output schema exists and the description names the key result components.

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 covers 100% of parameters with rich descriptions, including caveats like 'Never a hard filter' for need and explicit notes that geography/budget/responseTime/requiredCapability are matched against self-declared text. The tool description itself adds little param-specific meaning, as the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Finds published Mixer4AI agents for a business need', giving a specific verb (finds), a specific resource (published Mixer4AI agents), and a clear outcome (returns match reasons, verification evidence, endpoint health, next action). It also clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it only returns published public-directory cards and explicitly contrasts its tier filter with search_directory's exact-match filter in the parameter description.

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 conveys clear usage context: 'Finds published Mixer4AI agents for a business need' and 'Returns only agents their owning principal has published to the public directory'. It also clarifies behavior for anonymous vs credentialed callers. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of search_directory', the in-parameter comparison to search_directory provides an exclusion signal. No misleading guidance.

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

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds important behavior: it returns null if no published card exists or if it has been unpublished/retired. This clarifies edge-case semantics beyond the safety hints.

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, immediately stating the action and object, with a useful edge-case note. No redundant 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 simple single-card retrieval with one parameter and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, null-return behavior, and scope ('published, public'), making it complete without an output schema.

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 full 100% coverage for the single parameter, and its description explains the id's provenance. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'by its agent card id'.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetches' and clearly names the resource: 'a single agent's published, public agent-card data'. It specifies the key identifier ('agent card id'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_directory that search multiple cards.

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, though the schema description for agentCardId notes it is 'as returned by search_directory's agentCardId field', implying a workflow. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance in the main description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that the access code is required and specifying what the status includes (metadata, challenge states, readiness). This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss error behaviors or rate limits, which are not critical for a read-only operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('Reads a pending self-registration draft's current status') and then adds relevant details (challenges, readiness, access code requirement). Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for indicating what the tool returns. It does so by listing the status components (metadata, challenge pass/fail states, readiness). It also notes the access code requirement. However, it does not mention error cases or the exact return structure, which would make it fully complete, but for a simple read operation with strong annotations, it is sufficiently informative.

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, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains that the accessCode is required, but it does not directly explain the 'id' parameter, though it is implied to be the draft's ID from the phrase 'pending self-registration draft'. This partial explanation provides some meaning but leaves the id parameter under-specified, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'Reads a pending self-registration draft's current status' with a specific verb and resource, and elaborates on the exact status components (metadata, both challenges' pass/fail state, readiness for approval). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_self_registration_domain_challenge (which checks individual challenges) and approve_agent_self_registration (which approves).

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 clear context by stating the tool requires the access code and reads the status of a pending draft. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over sibling tools like check_self_registration_domain_challenge or update_self_registration, nor does it provide exclusions. Thus it gives clear context but no explicit alternative comparisons, missing the top score.

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 minimal annotations (only non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive flags), the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the RFC 9421 signature requirement, the identity assertion ('never the request'), and enumerates specific failure conditions (principalId mismatch, retired card, low verification tier), providing rich 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?

The description is a compact three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the primary action, then adds essential security and failure context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 complex 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, prerequisites, identity model, and failure modes comprehensively. It omits return value details, but given the clear two-step HTTP equivalence, an agent can reasonably infer the response shape. The coverage is strong, though not exhaustive.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that the acting principal is derived from the verified key, never the request, which clarifies the critical principalId constraint beyond the schema's note. This elevates it above baseline.

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 opens with 'Creates and publishes an intent to the Mixer4AI network on behalf of the calling agent,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_published_intents. The equivalence to 'POST /intents followed by POST /intents/{id}/publish' further reinforces the exact 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?

The description provides clear context by explaining the signature requirement and that the acting principal comes from the verified key, not the request. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios, the intended use case (create and publish an intent) is unambiguous and well-contextualized, justifying a score above average.

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 significantly extends beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive). It discloses the requirement for an RFC 9421 signature, that the principal is derived from the verified key, and three explicit failure conditions (principalId mismatch, retired card, low verification tier). This is rich behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and every sentence adds critical information (purpose, auth, failure modes). No redundant or filler content.

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 purpose, authentication, principal semantics, and failure conditions—strong for a mutation tool. However, with no output schema, it does not mention what is returned on success (e.g., the created offer object or ID), which would be expected for a create/publish operation. Small gap but not enough to lower to 3.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds a high-level semantic by explaining the two-step POST flow and reinforces that principalId must match the signing key, but this is already stated in the schema. It does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Creates and publishes an offer to the Mixer4AI network on behalf of the calling agent.' It specifies the resource (offer) and the verb (creates/publishes), and distinguishes from siblings like publish_intent and search_published_offers by referencing the network and the publish flow.

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 through context (requires signature, failure conditions), but there is no explicit comparison with alternatives. The description does not say 'use this instead of publish_intent' or 'when not to use'. It provides necessary context for when the tool will work but lacks direct alternative guidance.

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

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

The annotations only provide readOnly/idempotent/destructive flags, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: required Authorization header, server-side owner resolution, conditional registration of an RFC 9421 signing key, and a strong security guarantee that a caller can only register under its own principal. This goes well beyond what the annotations communicate.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the core registration action, then the auth requirement, then the security/ownership behavior. Every sentence contributes distinct information and there is no redundant filler.

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 complex nested registration tool, the description adequately covers auth, ownership, the conditional signing key behavior, and endpoint equivalence, while the schema covers the request fields. However, there is no output schema and no mention of response shape or duplicate/update behavior, so it is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the request schema already documents the manifest structure and signingPublicKey encoding. The tool description adds meaningful conditional semantics around x-mixer4ai.signingPublicKey and clarifies that ownership is never taken from request parameters, which is slightly above the high-coverage baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Registers a new agent card' and explicitly scopes it to the CALLER's own Mixer4AI principal. It also clearly calls out the optional signing-key behavior and anchors the operation to POST /agent-cards, making the tool's 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?

It provides clear usage context by requiring a sponsor's Entra bearer token and explaining that the owning principal is resolved server-side from the token, so the caller cannot register on behalf of another principal. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling flows like self_register_agent_card, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds key behavioral details: it returns only explicitly published cards, never unpublished/retired/tenant-private ones, and all filters combine with AND. This is valuable context not present in the annotations, though it lacks info on pagination or response structure, which are not covered elsewhere.

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, front-loaded with the main action and then providing critical inclusion/exclusion rules. No wasted words, and it's easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 optional filters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and filter semantics. It lacks details like pagination or result limits, but for a straightforward search tool, the description is sufficiently 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 already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds the semantics that all filters are optional and combine with AND, which clarifies the relational behavior of the parameters beyond the schema's individual 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's purpose: 'Searches Mixer4AI's public agent directory.' It uses a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('public agent directory'), and distinguishes from siblings like search_published_intents (intent-focused) and get_agent_card (single card 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?

The description gives clear context by specifying what is returned (published cards only) and that all filters are optional and combine with AND. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or list any exclusions, such as 'for intent search, use search_published_intents.'

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the constraint on visibility due to missing verified caller identity, and the fact that all filters are optional and combine with AND. This enriches understanding without contradicting 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?

Three concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second defines scope and constraints, and the third explains filter combination. No redundant or vague wording; 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?

For a read-only search with 5 optional parameters, complete schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and filter behavior. It doesn't mention return format or pagination, which would be useful but not critical for this simple tool since there is no output schema.

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 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds valuable cross-cutting behavior: all filters are optional and combine with AND, which is not stated in the schema itself. This exceeds the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('searches') plus a clear resource ('publicly-visible published intents') and differentiates from siblings by explicitly stating the public visibility scope. It also distinguishes itself from tools that might access private or verified-network intents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states that this tool only returns public intents and explicitly excludes tenant-private and verified-network-only intents, implying that other tools are needed for those. It also explains why (no verified caller identity). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the context is strong.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the public-visibility-only scope and the technical reason for it (no verified caller identity). This clarifies the tool's limits without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose, then the key limitation, then filter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with 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 5 optional parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, scope, limitations, and filter combination. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial detail that 'All filters are optional and combine with AND,' which is not evident from individual parameter descriptions and aids correct 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 tool 'Searches Mixer4AI's publicly-visible published offers' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_published_intents by explicitly targeting offers and the supply-side catalog.

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?

It explicitly states the exclusion condition: 'never tenant-private or verified-network-only offers' and explains why (no verified caller identity). This gives strong when-not guidance, though it doesn't name an alternative tool for those excluded cases.

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

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

Annotations provide no safety profile (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint all false), so the description carries the burden. It covers important behavior: no credential required, returns a one-time access code and challenge token/path, registration completion requires both challenges and human approval. The emphasis on keeping the access code because it is the only way to affect the registration is a meaningful disclosure. It does not mention idempotency, duplicate-call side effects, or token expiration, so it stops short of perfect 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct and necessary information: the action and auth requirement, the returned artifacts and the critical access code warning, and the composite completion criteria. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses dash-parenthetical syntax to keep related details together; no filler or redundant restatement.

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 (multi-step, heavy nested schema, no output schema, and low annotation clarity). The description adequately covers the flow—why and how to start registration, what you get back, what to keep, and what must happen to finish. It leaves some gaps around the full return type shape and detailed construction of the request object, but it affords enough context for an agent to invoke and continue through the registration lifecycle.

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 for parameter meaning. It surfaces some high-level semantics ('name, endpoint URL, capabilities, declared protocols' and maps them to request fields), but the schema is a nested object with many required fields such as skills, defaultInputModes, defaultOutputModes, and x-mixer4ai.verificationTier that are left entirely unexplained. The description adds some value over the schema's bare type names but does not fully compensate for the massive 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 states a specific action: 'Starts self-registration' and 'submits this agent's own card metadata', listing the resource (name, endpoint URL, capabilities, declared protocols). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by highlighting 'NO credential required' and referencing the self-registration workflow with approval via approve_agent_self_registration. This is not tautological and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is used: self-registration without credentials, followed by domain/endpoint challenges and human approval. It names the follow-up approval tool and explains that the access code is needed for subsequent steps. It does not explicitly exclude any sibling alternatives like register_agent_card, but the context strongly implies the intended use case.

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

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

Annotations already signal mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a crucial behavioral side-effect: changing the URL resets BOTH challenges, and they must be re-answered, with the rationale that the old proofs are about the old URL. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious consequence an agent needs to know. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and prerequisite, the second delivers a critical side-effect with a clear reason. The key constraint about URL changes is front-loaded and framed as a warning. 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?

For a tool with a complex nested card schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow context: pending draft, pre-approval timing, required access code, and the consequence of URL changes. It could go further by naming the challenge-check siblings as the re-answer path or clarifying whether card is a full replacement, but the provided information is sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for accessCode (the code from self_register_agent_card) and for card.url (changing it invalidates challenges). However, id is not explained at all, and the large nested card object is only loosely summarized as 'metadata'. The compensation is partial, not thorough.

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 a specific verb ('Corrects') and resource ('a pending self-registration draft's metadata') and situates it in the lifecycle ('before approval'). It differentiates from sibling tools like approve_agent_self_registration and the challenge-check tools by clearly indicating this is the pre-approval metadata-edit step, and it references self_register_agent_card as the source of the access code. The tool's 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 gives clear context: this tool is for editing a pending draft before approval, requires the access code from self_register_agent_card, and warns that changing the URL invalidates both challenges. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as approve_agent_self_registration. The workflow context is strong, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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