Safe Merchant Solutions Assistant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavior: it discloses the return shape (short page excerpt), the failure mode (plainly says no such service), and the fallback behavior (suggests nearest names) plus how to interpret that negative. Missing only peripheral details like performance or auth expectations.

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 front-loaded sentences with the core action first and the failure semantics second; no filler. Slightly dense in the second sentence but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 explain returns, and it does (page excerpt, negative result, nearest-name suggestions). For a one-parameter read lookup this is close to complete; only the exact response structure is left unspecified, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 parameter already documents that the name must match list_services output and is case-insensitive. The description repeats the sourcing constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up one service by name') and scopes it as a single-item lookup, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_services. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Ties usage to list_services as the source of the name and tells the agent how to treat a not-found result ('treat that as authoritative: the business does not offer it'). It does not explicitly say 'use list_services when you need the full catalog', so the routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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 the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that results are complete and enumerable, that a total count is returned, and that the sibling does semantic ranking. It doesn't mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only listing tool those are minor gaps.

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 with zero padding. The core purpose and the sibling differentiation are front-loaded, and the practical paging guidance trails appropriately.

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, but the description compensates by telling the agent a total count is returned and the list is complete/enumerable, and the schema documents nextOffset for paging. Only finer return-format details are unstated, which is a small gap for a low-complexity list 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%, so all three parameters (limit, filter, offset) are already fully documented in the schema, including the multi-word AND matching behavior. The description's 'use filter to narrow' and 'use offset to page' restate schema guidance rather than adding new meaning; 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List this business's services from its extracted catalogue') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling `services` tool by characterizing that one as a semantic search returning closest matches. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative (`services`), explains the condition that selects this tool (need for a complete, enumerable list with a count), and directs the agent to use `filter` to narrow and `offset` to page. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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 the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are closest-matching snippets (i.e., ranked/approximate) rather than exhaustive, and that each carries a source. It omits read-only nature, permissions, freshness of the index, and any 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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. Every clause earns its place, though the return-behavior clause could have been equally brief.

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 query tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what it does and the shape of the return (ranked snippets with source). It is nearly complete; only auth and index-scope details are absent.

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 both parameters are already documented with types and the topK range (1–20). The description only reinforces the natural-language framing of the query, adding no syntax, weighting, or filtering semantics 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?

States a clear verb (Search) and resource (this knowledge base) plus the input type (natural-language query). Siblings like get_service, list_services and submit_contact are unrelated operations, so no differentiation is needed, but 'this knowledge base' is slightly vague about scope.

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 by the contrast with 'an exhaustive list,' which tells the agent this is a ranked-relevance lookup rather than a full enumeration. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool or what prerequisites (auth, index scope) apply.

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 the full behavioral burden. It does disclose an important trait: the tool returns closest matches, not a complete list. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how it handles empty or poor matches, or what the result shape looks like.

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 entire description is one sentence that front-loads the core behavior and ends with a practical routing instruction. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The main gap is the absence of an output schema and any mention of edge-case behavior, but these are not critical for basic 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 100%, so both `query` and `topK` are already documented. The description adds 'natural-language' framing, but this is largely reflected in the schema's own query description. No substantial extra parameter meaning is provided.

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 and resource: 'Find service offerings relevant to a natural-language query.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with `list_services` by saying it returns closest matches rather than a complete list, making its role clear.

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 usage context: use this tool for natural-language service search, and use `list_services` when a complete catalogue is needed. It does not explicitly address the `faq` sibling, but the domain difference is evident enough.

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 does disclose the important behavioral rule that only the field group as a whole is mandatory and that a declined field should not block submission, but it says nothing about what actually happens on submit (where the lead goes, whether confirmation is returned, side effects). It also conflicts with the schema, which lists only what_is_your_name as required while the description claims one contact method is required.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a run-on sentence that repeats the very long generated parameter names and buries the 'group as a whole is mandatory' rule at the end. It is functional but not efficiently structured.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain the submission outcome and any side effects, and it does not. It does cover purpose and the field-group validation rule adequately, so it is minimally complete for invocation but leaves the post-submit behavior unspecified.

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 the baseline is 3; each property already carries its own prompt-style description. The description adds the group-level requirement semantics (at least one of phone/WhatsApp-Telegram), which is real meaning beyond the schema, but it is inconsistent with the schema's required array, which could confuse an agent.

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 outcome clearly: it gets a representative from Safe Merchant Solutions to contact the visitor, which identifies this as a lead/contact submission tool. It does not name a verb like 'submit' explicitly, but the resource and effect are unambiguous, and no sibling (get_service, list_services, search, services) overlaps with it.

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 context is implied by the purpose (use this when a visitor wants to be contacted), and the description adds a rule about never refusing submission when one optional field is declined. However, it never states when to prefer this over other tools or any prerequisites beyond the field-group rule.

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