Nukafever Authentic Photography & Datasets

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial behavioral facts the annotations cannot convey: nothing is charged by this call, payment happens on the returned URL, and repeating with the same idempotency_key and quote returns the same order. These directly shape how an agent should sequence and retry.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the safety fact (nothing charged) and the idempotency contract. No 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (payment URL and order_token), that no charge occurs, and how retries behave, which is everything needed to call and handle 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?

Schema coverage is 71%, so the schema documents most parameters, yet the description adds real meaning: the two required booleans must be true only after the buyer consented, tying them to a legal/consent condition rather than a mere flag. It does not add format detail for quote or idempotency_key beyond what the schema already states.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource (creates an order) plus what it produces (payment URL with tax handled, secret order_token). It also names the prerequisite artifact ('from a valid quote'), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_quote that produces that quote.

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

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

Gives clear preconditions: a valid quote must exist and both consent flags must be true only after the buyer agreed. It also explains the retry path via idempotency_key. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the sibling to use instead when no quote exists, so it falls just short of 5.

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 are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries real weight and delivers: it discloses that the link is signed, expires in 5 minutes, and is rate-limited to 10 per order. That quota and expiry context is exactly what an agent needs to avoid wasted or repeated calls. It stops short of explaining auth or error 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 filler, with the key constraint (5-minute validity) and the quota front-loaded. Every clause 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 two-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what the return is (a signed link), its lifetime, and its quota. A brief note on failure modes (expired/invalid token, quota exhausted) would make it 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%, so order_id and order_token are already fully documented, including their formats and provenance from create_order. The description adds no param-level detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('signed link to download the full-resolution original') and scopes it to a paid order, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_photo or get_license. It does not name a sibling directly, so it lands just below the top tier.

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 'paid order' qualifier implies when this is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., get_photo for previews), and no stated prerequisites beyond the order being paid. Usage is left to inference.

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 this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the licence can come back as a PDF certificate, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about the secret order_token requirement or behavior when the order is unpaid.

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

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

A single sentence with zero filler that front-loads the resource and appends the format alternative. Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is nonetheless thin on prerequisites (payment status, secret token handling) for a tool requiring an order token, leaving meaningful 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the format enum. The description's '(format=pdf)' merely echoes the schema's format parameter without adding syntax or semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description names a specific resource (the licence) and scopes it to a paid order, with the two output forms stated. It is clearly distinguishable from create_order or get_order_status, though the retrieval verb itself is only implied by the title rather than the 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 phrase 'of a paid order' implies a precondition (the order must exist and be paid), which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_download_link or get_order_status, so usage must be inferred.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the terminal states (expired, failed) and a polling cadence, but says nothing about what happens on an invalid/expired token or what to do once a terminal state is reached.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the state enumeration and followed by the actionable polling instruction. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 two-parameter, annotation-covered polling tool with no output schema, the description effectively enumerates return values and gives timing guidance. Only error/terminal-state handling is unaddressed.

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% and the schema already explains that order_token is a secret returned once by create_order. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

'State of an order' plus the enumerated status values tells an agent exactly what this tool returns and clearly separates it from create_order. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb, but the resource and returned value set are 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?

'Poll every few seconds after the buyer pays' gives concrete timing guidance tied to a lifecycle event, which is the key usage context for a polling tool. No explicit when-not or sibling alternative is named, but none is really needed given the sibling set.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add useful output context (metadata, fixed price, licence terms) that annotations cannot express, but says nothing about invalid-id behavior or whether pricing/licence data can vary by region or time.

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

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

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the payload contents are front-loaded. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a statement of action, which slightly weakens the opening but wastes no 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does list the three payload components. It still omits failure modes, whether the fixed price is currency-specific, and how licence terms relate to the separate get_license 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 100% and the single photo_id parameter is documented in the schema with a format example. The description adds no syntax, format or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource and its payload: one photograph plus metadata, fixed price and machine-readable licence terms. This distinguishes it from the plural search_photos, though it never names a sibling, and the overlap with the sibling get_license is left unaddressed.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to call this versus search_photos (to obtain an id) or get_license (for terms), nor any prerequisite or error condition. The agent must infer the entry point 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the quote is signed, valid for only 15 minutes, tax-inclusive and priced in EUR, and non-negotiable, which materially affects how an agent should use 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The most decision-relevant facts (price, validity, non-negotiability) come first and every sentence carries 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?

For a read-only, no-output-schema tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned, the currency/tax basis, the signature, and the short validity window. The only real gap is guidance on the offer_id parameter and how the quote relates to the ordering flow.

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 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not. 'One photograph' loosely suggests photo_id is the target photo, yet no format or identifier semantics are given, and the optional offer_id (licence unit selection) is never addressed in the description at all.

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

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

States a specific resource (fixed price plus licence terms for one photograph), so an agent knows this returns a quote for a single photo. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_license, which also deals with licence terms, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_license or get_photo. The statement 'Prices are not negotiable' is a constraint, not usage direction, so the agent must infer that this is a pre-purchase pricing step.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are watermarked previews, never originals, with fixed prices attached, and the query engine tolerates typos and supports English or French. It omits ranking/pagination behavior, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The core capability comes first, the return contract second, and the licensing constraint last, which is exactly the order an agent needs it.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload, the language/tolerance behavior, and the licensing limit. Remaining gaps (result ordering, how offset interacts with limit) are minor and partly covered by the schema descriptions.

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 schema already documents all five parameters (limit, offset, query, country, category). The description still adds meaning the schema does not: the query field tolerates synonyms, typos and both English and French, which changes how an agent should phrase queries.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the catalogue') and describes the return payload (watermarked previews, metadata, fixed prices), which implicitly separates it from get_photo and get_download_link. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 a discovery use case ('Empty = best photos', search tolerance for typos) but never says when to choose this over get_photo for a known asset or get_quote for pricing. Usage is implied by the described output, not spelled out as when/when-not guidance.

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