Agent Beacon

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership constraint ('you submitted') but provides no additional detail on error behavior, token sensitivity, or rate limits. It adds some value but not substantial 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 single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the object, and the required parameters in a compact and immediately scannable form.

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, but with no output schema the description does not explain what status values to expect or how errors manifest. The call pattern (request_id + return_token) is clear, but an agent is left guessing about the response shape and possible failure modes, leaving moderate 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does tie both parameters to the operation ('using its request_id and return_token'), giving them clear roles, but it does not explain where return_token comes from, its format, or why it is required. This partial compensation merits a mid score.

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 ('Check') and resource ('status of a request you submitted'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_capability_request and describe_beacon. The phrase 'you submitted' adds an ownership constraint that makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 'a request you submitted' — the tool is for checking after submission — but it does not explicitly name the sibling submit_capability_request as the prior step, nor does it state when not to use it or alternatives. The guidance is present but 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this consistently by stating 'requests aren't fulfilled' and 'no payment is requested or accepted.' It adds valuable context beyond the annotations by disclosing what the tool returns (service definition, what it logs, how to submit). 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The usage condition is front-loaded, followed by behavioral expectations and the return value. Each sentence earns its place, though it could arguably be tightened.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, usage expectations, and return value. The sibling tools (check_request_status, submit_capability_request) provide surrounding workflow context. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates appropriately by explaining what the agent receives — the service's nature, what it logs, and submission instructions — which is the relevant semantic context for a parameterless 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 states a specific purpose: describe capability needs that aren't currently offered. 'Beacon' is abstract, but the description defines it well as a mechanism for surfacing unmet needs. It implicitly differentiates from siblings — this is the 'describe' step versus submit_capability_request and check_request_status — though the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 a clear when-to-use condition: 'if you... needed a capability and couldn't find a service that provides it.' It also sets expectations that requests aren't fulfilled and no payment is involved. However, it never names the sibling alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool versus submit_capability_request or check_request_status, leaving the routing decision 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?

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing that requests are logged, Agent Beacon commits to no fulfillment, no payment is accepted, and PII-like strings are scrubbed before storage. It also discloses the response shape (request_id and return_token), giving the agent a full behavioral picture.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: no-fulfillment caveat, no payment, privacy warning, data scrubbing, and return values. There is no filler or repetition.

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 essential non-schema behaviors needed to invoke correctly: logging, no fulfillment commitment, payment prohibition, privacy guidance, PII removal, and return token usage. For a high-parameter tool without an output schema, this is sufficient context for an 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 100%, so the structured schema already documents all 17 parameters including required fields and enums. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given complete schema coverage; 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 clearly states the specific action: describing a capability the agent needed but couldn't find, and explains Agent Beacon logs the request without fulfilling it. It is readily distinguished from the siblings check_request_status and describe_beacon.

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 (when a needed capability is missing) and states exclusions such as no payment accepted and no confidential information. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but mentions the return_token for checking status later, implying the follow-up path.

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