audit

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It reveals the tool is unauthenticated and mentions a workflow constraint (wait for approval). However, it does not disclose side effects, error handling, or rate limits.

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

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

Two sentences, each carrying substantive information. Front-loaded with the action, followed by contextual notes. No unnecessary words.

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

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

Given the moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the tool's role and usage context adequately. Could mention expected response or next steps, but overall sufficient.

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 67%, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions. No parameter details are provided in the description text.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool submits an unauthenticated Sulvo account application lead via signup API. It distinguishes from audit tools and ad-unit generation, making its specific role clear among siblings.

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

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

Describes that the tool is for initial application submission, notes audit tools are available without login, and advises waiting for approval before ad-unit generation. Does not explicitly list alternatives but provides contextual 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether the tool is destructive, what side effects occur, permission requirements, or what happens to previous artifacts. The mismatch with the schema further obscures behavior.

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

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

The description is very short (two sentences), but the second sentence is misleading and contradicts the schema. Conciseness is not valuable when it sacrifices accuracy; a slightly longer but correct description would be better.

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 (mutation with nested object, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, side effects, error conditions, and practical usage context. The contradiction with the schema further reduces 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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. However, the description adds false information by claiming required inputs (expectedVersion, auditArtifactId) that are not in the schema, and it does not clarify how they relate to the 'input' object. This misleads rather than helps.

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 'Attach a current public revenue audit artifact,' which gives a verb and resource, but it is vague about what 'attach' means. It also mentions 'expectedVersion' and 'auditArtifactId' as required inputs, but these are not present in the schema (only workspaceId is required), causing confusion and misleading the agent. The purpose is partially clear but undermined by the mismatch.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., run_publisher_revenue_audit, get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist). There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, permissions required, or what to do with the returned URL. There is a potential contradiction: description mentions a provider parameter, but the schema does not have a provider property, only an 'input' object with no documented fields.

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

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

Two concise sentences, no fluff. Could be slightly improved by adding structure like separating purpose from usage condition, but overall efficient.

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

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

Lacks context for the authorization flow: no mention of callback, state, or collaboration with other tools. Without output schema or annotations, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use 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 75%, but the description adds meaning by mentioning provider values (gam/adsense) not present in the schema. However, it fails to clarify how to actually set the provider since the 'input' object is undocumented, leaving ambiguity.

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

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

Clearly states the tool returns an authorization URL for GAM or AdSense, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also deal with authorization or onboarding.

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?

States that the input requires provider set to gam or adsense, giving a usage condition. However, no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_sulvo_revenue_onboarding or verify_sulvo_placement_installation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the API key is from environment variables, that unapproved accounts are rejected, and what is returned (id and container root). It also mentions a behavioral constraint about the size parameter. It could add more about side effects or error cases, but overall is transparent.

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

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information (purpose, prerequisite, condition, return). No fluff or redundancy.

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

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

Given 7 parameters (nested object), no output schema, and complex prerequisites, the description covers key aspects: key requirement, approval condition, and return value. It could expand on the 'size' parameter's backend requirement or describe the ad unit concept, but it is sufficient for 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 86% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds output info but little extra meaning for parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'Returns the created unit id and container root' is useful but not about parameter semantics.

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

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

The description starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Sulvo ad unit for an approved publisher'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_sulvo_interstitial_units' or 'apply_for_sulvo_account'.

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 context on prerequisites: requires SULVO_API_KEY with specific scope, account must be approved, and the key is never passed as argument. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other creation tools), so it loses one point.

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 fully carries the burden. It indicates creation (mutation) and a required API key, but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, response format, or any potential issues like duplicate handling or creation confirmation.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it is slightly underspecified, preventing a perfect score.

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

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

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description lacks details about return values, confirmation of creation, and behavioral nuances. It is incomplete for an agent to understand the full impact and response.

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 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is moderate but not compensated by description.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'Sulvo auto-sticky ad units' for an approved publisher, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_sulvo_ad_unit and create_sulvo_interstitial_units.

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

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

The description mentions a prerequisite (approved publisher and API key) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It implies usage for sticky units only, but lacks direct comparison with siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It says 'Create' implying a write operation but does not disclose any side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior. The term 'tagless' adds some specificity but not enough 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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource, then adds a key requirement.

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

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and authentication context but lacks details on expected output, error scenarios, or the approval process for publishers.

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

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

The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With 67% schema coverage, it does not compensate for the missing description on 'outputFormat' or elaborate on 'domain' or 'adTypes'.

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

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

The description clearly states it creates 'Sulvo interstitial ad units (tagless)' for an approved publisher. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'create_sulvo_ad_unit' which likely handles other ad unit types.

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

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

The description mentions a prerequisite: the SULVO_API_KEY with inventory:write scope in the server environment, and implies the publisher must be approved. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar siblings like 'create_sulvo_ad_unit'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool creates a 'pending' account, implying a temporary state, and notes the password requirement. However, it does not address error conditions (e.g., duplicate email) or side effects, which are important for a creation tool.

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

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

Two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence ('password required by current backend') is somewhat redundant given the schema, but overall there is no wasted text.

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 should clarify return values or next steps (e.g., what happens after creation). It does not mention the optional parameters or expected outcomes, leaving an agent to guess the response structure. Given 12 parameters and complexity, this is insufficient.

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

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (3 of 12 parameters documented). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. For example, 'phone', 'utm*', 'mixpanelId', and 'outputFormat' are left unexplained. At baseline 3 for partial coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool runs 'normal Sulvo signup step 2' to create a pending user/account. It specifically identifies the step in the signup flow, distinguishing it from siblings like start_sulvo_signup (step 1) and submit_sulvo_signup_documents.

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 notes that the backend requires a password before proceeding to ads.txt and review, giving some sequential context. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., must have run start_sulvo_signup first) or provide guidance on when not to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature and authorization requirements, but does not state that deletion is irreversible or what happens on failure. This is acceptable but could be more explicit.

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

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

Two efficient sentences front-load the purpose and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 deletion tool with one parameter, the description covers the essentials: what, prerequisites, and ownership constraint. Missing details about return value or irreversibility, but the overall context is sufficient.

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 a clear description for adId: 'The ad unit id to delete.' The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states 'Delete a Sulvo ad unit by id for an approved publisher.' The verb 'Delete' and resource 'ad unit' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like create_sulvo_ad_unit or delete_sulvo_advanced_report.

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

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

The description specifies prerequisites: requires SULVO_API_KEY with inventory:write scope and ownership enforcement. It implicitly tells when to use (to delete an ad unit) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool is destructive (delete) and requires specific authentication (SULVO_API_KEY with reports:write scope). This provides essential behavioral context beyond the bare action.

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

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

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a crucial prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or missing 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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, required authorization, and input. It could mention whether the operation is idempotent or what happens on success/failure, but the absence is not critical.

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 has 100% coverage, describing the only parameter 'reportId' as 'The advanced report id to delete.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'saved Sulvo advanced report by id', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_sulvo_ad_unit (different resource) and save_sulvo_advanced_report (different action).

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

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

The description specifies that the report is identified by 'id' and mentions the required API key with 'reports:write' scope, providing clear context for when this tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It clearly states it's a read operation (get benchmarks), but does not disclose return format, data freshness, or any permissions required. This is adequate but not detailed.

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

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

The description is one sentence of 18 words, directly stating the purpose and comparison scope. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action.

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

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

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no complex return types, the description covers the core functionality. Could mention output structure, but not critical 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% with the single parameter 'vertical' fully described in the schema. The description adds 'by publisher vertical' but no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'comparative yield and CPM industry benchmarks', clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_sulvo_report or get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist.

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

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

The description implies usage when needing benchmarks by vertical, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative reporting tools. However, the context of siblings makes the use case clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only, idempotency, permissions, or data freshness. The tool likely performs a read, but it is not explicitly stated.

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 that is clear and to the point. No unnecessary words, and it effectively conveys the tool's purpose.

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

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

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what is returned (checklist and notes). However, it could mention that it is a read-only operation to aid 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not add parameter semantics, but the baseline for no parameters is 4, and there is no misinterpretation.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns a public checklist and interpretation notes for the publisher revenue-readiness screen. It uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'checklist and interpretation notes', distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. As a simple retrieval tool, it would benefit from hints like 'use before running revenue audit' or 'this is read-only'. Without such context, the agent may misuse it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Return status'. It does not mention that it is read-only, idempotent, or what happens if the workspaceId is invalid. The idempotencyKey description mentions 'same mutation', which is contradictory for a status-checking tool. Missing prerequisites, rate limits, or error conditions.

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

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

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, which is concise. It gets to the point without fluff. However, it may be too concise, lacking important context about parameters and usage.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return format and structure, but it only lists three aspects without indicating whether they are fields in a JSON object. The outputFormat parameter (markdown/json) is not mentioned. The complex input parameter is not explained. The description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and a nested object.

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 75%; most parameters have descriptions. The workspaceId description is helpful ('returned by start or status tool'). The input parameter has a vague description ('Fields required by this journey action') and no additional detail in the tool description. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns three types of status (active-probe, real-page, remediation) for an activation attempt. It distinguishes from siblings like get_sulvo_revenue_onboarding_status and run_sulvo_activation_preflight, but is slightly ambiguous by saying 'latest' while requiring a workspaceId, implying a specific activation rather than the most recent across all.

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

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The tool does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_sulvo_revenue_onboarding_status or run_sulvo_activation_preflight. There is no explicit indication of prerequisites (e.g., activation must have been started).

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 bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires authorization. The contradictory note 'Input is empty' undermines trust.

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

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

The description is extremely short but sacrifices clarity. Every sentence should earn its place, but 'Input is empty' is misleading and unnecessary, while key information about output or usage is omitted.

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

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

Given the complexity of the sibling toolset and the lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'installation values' are or how they relate to the locked revision, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding.

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

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

Schema coverage is 75%, providing baseline parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides. The mention 'Input is empty' is confusing given the required workspaceId.

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 it returns installation values for the locked revision, which specifies the verb and resource. However, the phrase 'Input is empty' is misleading because the schema requires workspaceId, creating ambiguity about what input is expected.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool among many siblings.

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?

States read-only nature and required API key, which are important behavioral traits. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it lacks disclosure on potential side effects, rate limits, or data freshness, making it adequate but not thorough.

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

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

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and prerequisite, second lists report types. No fluff, front-loaded with key 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?

Covers purpose, prerequisite, and report types. Lacks detail on output format or typical use cases, but given the presence of outputFormat parameter and sibling tools, it is minimally adequate.

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

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

Schema description coverage is high (88%), so baseline is 3. Description reinforces the schema by listing report types but does not add new meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present in the schema.

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

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

Clearly states 'Fetch a Sulvo report (read-only)' with a specific verb and resource. Lists all supported report types, distinguishing get_sulvo_report from sibling tools that are mostly mutations (create, delete, update) and other list tools like list_sulvo_advanced_reports.

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?

Mentions prerequisite (SULVO_API_KEY) and lists report types, providing context on when to use. However, does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_sulvo_advanced_reports or specify when not to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it 'returns' data, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm safety (read-only, no side effects). It lacks disclosure of authorization needs, rate limits, or any potential side effects, leaving the agent with minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence (19 words) that efficiently conveys the core action and output components. There is no fluff, and every word serves a purpose.

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

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'journey stage,' 'readiness dimensions,' or 'next best action' entail, nor their possible values or format. An agent would lack sufficient context to interpret the response 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 50%: workspaceId has a helpful description linking to 'start or status tool,' but outputFormat has no description. The tool description adds no extra meaning for parameters; it does not explain workspaceId or outputFormat beyond the schema. Overall, little additional value.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns 'backend-owned journey stage, readiness dimensions, and one next best action,' specifying the resource (revenue onboarding status) and the components returned. However, it does not differentiate this from similar sibling tools like get_sulvo_activation_smoke_status or get_sulvo_signup_status, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as start_sulvo_revenue_onboarding or set_sulvo_onboarding_journey. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or provide any contextual cues beyond the tool name.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it is a 'normal' fetch, but no details on side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Inadequate for a mutation-free read.

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

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. 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?

With no output schema and minimal description, the agent lacks details on return format, error cases, and prerequisites. For a signup step, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, yet description adds no explanation for 'userId' or 'outputFormat'. The description does not link the parameters to the action, leaving the agent with no semantic help 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?

Clearly states the verb 'fetch' and resource 'ads.txt lines', and provides context as step 4a of signup. Distinguishes from sibling 'verify_sulvo_signup_ads_txt' which presumably verifies instead of fetching.

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

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

Implies it is a step in the signup process, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives nor provide exclusion criteria. Needs more guidance on sequence or conditions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the limitation of the API, but lacks details on other behavioral traits like permissions, caching, or output format.

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?

Very concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it could be restructured to include parameter info without sacrificing brevity.

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

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

No output schema and 0% parameter coverage make the description incomplete. It does not describe return values or parameter roles, leaving significant gaps for a simple 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. The two parameters (userId, outputFormat) are not mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns signup status capability and explains the limitation of the API. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not guess approval state.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Import' implying mutation, but doesn't describe side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or error scenarios. The mention of 'expectedVersion' hints at concurrency control but isn't explained.

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 two sentences, with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core action. However, it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not. The term 'connected provider units' is unexplained. For a mutation tool with four parameters, more context about behavior and results is needed.

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 75%, with descriptions for workspaceId, outputFormat, and idempotencyKey. The description adds 'provider and expectedVersion' which likely belong to the nested 'input' object, but doesn't clarify their types or roles. This adds modest value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states the tool imports 'connected provider units' and mentions required inputs, giving a basic verb+resource. However, the description claims provider and expectedVersion are required, while the input schema lists workspaceId as the only required field, creating a discrepancy that undermines clarity.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., connect_sulvo_backup_provider, create_sulvo_ad_unit). There is no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or typical workflows.

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?

Although no annotations are provided, the description explicitly discloses the required authentication (SULVO_API_KEY) and the needed scope, which is key for an agent to understand access requirements. It doesn't detail behavior when no reports exist or error handling, but the name 'list' implies 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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the action and a critical requirement. Every word earns its place.

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

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

Given the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and a key prerequisite. It does not describe what the returned list contains (e.g., report names or IDs), but for a simple list operation, this is adequate.

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

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

The only parameter, outputFormat, is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides no additional meaning beyond the enum values in the schema. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description should at least note that the output format can be chosen among markdown, json, or csv.

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 lists saved Sulvo advanced reports for the account. The verb 'list' combined with the resource 'sulvo advanced reports' differentiates it from siblings like 'create_sulvo_advanced_report' or 'get_sulvo_report' which involve creation or retrieval of a specific report.

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

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

The description specifies that the tool requires a SULVO_API_KEY with 'reports:read' scope, providing a clear prerequisite. It implies usage to see available reports before selecting one, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_sulvo_report' which would require a report identifier.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'lock the exact mapped revision' without disclosing side effects, destructiveness, permissions, or other behavioral traits.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from slightly more structure, but it remains efficient.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, journey context, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and when to call this tool within the Sulvo workflow.

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

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

The description adds meaning by specifying that the 'input' object should contain 'expectedVersion' and 'revisionId', which are not detailed in the schema. However, it does not explain the other parameters like workspaceId, outputFormat, or idempotencyKey.

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 locks a revision, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like map_sulvo_placement_backup or verify_sulvo_placement_installation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions required inputs, without context on when locking is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or what permissions are needed. The verb 'Map' implies some change, but no details are provided.

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

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

The description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the general purpose, and the second lists required inputs. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the purpose sentence could be more precise.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'mapping' achieves, what the output is, or how it fits into the activation journey. Users cannot infer correct usage without additional context.

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

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

The schema describes only the top-level parameters (workspaceId, input, outputFormat, idempotencyKey), but the input object's subfields are unspecified. The description adds meaning by listing the required nested fields ('expectedVersion, stablePlacementId, provider, providerId'), which the schema lacks, providing critical context beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states the verb 'Map' and the resource 'display placement backup', but the action is vague—'Map' could mean associate, create, or update. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'connect_sulvo_backup_provider' or 'import_sulvo_backup_units'. The required inputs are listed, but the tool's core function remains unclear.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites or the intended workflow. The description only lists required inputs without explaining the scenario.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Save ... decisions', implying mutation but offering no details on side effects, authorization needs, or consequences. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but conciseness is undermined by being incomplete and misleading. It front-loads a vague purpose but lacks necessary detail.

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

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

Given 4 parameters, 1 required, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to explain the critical 'input' parameter and how to construct decisions. It is entirely insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

The description mentions 'expectedVersion and decisions' as required inputs, but these are not present in the input schema, which only has workspaceId, outputFormat, idempotencyKey, and an opaque input object. This mismatch misleads the agent. Schema coverage is 75%, but the description adds no useful meaning and contradicts the schema.

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

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

The description states 'Save accept, edit, or reject decisions', giving a verb and resource. However, it is vague and does not explicitly mention 'placement recommendations' as the resource, nor does it distinguish from siblings like save_sulvo_placement_plan or lock_sulvo_placement_revision.

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 use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., save_sulvo_placement_plan) or any prerequisites. The description does not mention use cases or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description indicates a state-changing mutation ('return to...'), which is transparent about the core behavior. However, it lacks details on side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or whether it is destructive.

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

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

Single sentence, no fluff. Could be slightly expanded to explain context (e.g., 'backup-only serving'), but overall efficient.

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

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

No output schema, and the description provides no information about return value, error conditions, or behavior on failure. For a mutation tool, additional context is needed.

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 high (75%), and the description does not add significant meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. The schema explains workspaceId, outputFormat, and idempotencyKey adequately.

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 (return) and the target state (publisher-owned backup-only serving), making the tool's purpose specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_sulvo_activation or submit_sulvo_activation_workspace, which are forward operations.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like start_sulvo_activation or get_sulvo_activation_smoke_status. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions for rollback.

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

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

No annotations exist; the description mentions using 'directional public evidence' and lists audit areas but omits behavioral details like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or output structure.

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, front-loading the purpose and listing key audit areas. No 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?

Given the complexity (4 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description lacks context on output format, expected runtime, prerequisites, or integration with sibling tools. It needs more detail for an agent to use effectively.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters; the tool description adds marginal value by mentioning 'directional public evidence' but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides.

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 runs a 'revenue-readiness screen' using public evidence, enumerates specific audit areas (ad stacks, ads.txt, consent, PageSpeed, premium opportunities), and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on Sulvo-specific actions.

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

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

The description implies usage for publisher pre-screening but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like applying for Sulvo or running activation preflights. No when-not guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what the tool returns. The outputFormat parameter hints at output type, but this is not explained in the description.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it sacrifices clarity by being too brief; additional details about the tool's purpose or behavior would improve it without excessive length.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested input object, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'bounded activation preflight' entails, what the output looks like, or how this tool fits into the broader activation workflow.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For the outputFormat parameter lacking a schema description, the description also provides no clarification.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'activation preflight', with qualifiers 'complete bounded' and 'locked workspace revision'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'start_sulvo_revenue_onboarding' or 'get_sulvo_activation_smoke_status', but the jargon may be unclear to new users.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are related tools like 'submit_sulvo_activation_workspace' or 'rollback_sulvo_activation', but the description does not explain the preflight's role in the workflow or any prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the email delivery, immediate/schedule modes, and API key requirement. However, it does not explain behavior on update (merge vs replace), idempotency, or error handling.

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

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

The description is two sentences plus a note, every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.

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

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

Given 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers high-level purpose but lacks detail on report types, update semantics, scheduling mechanics, and return format. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 47%. The description adds context for immediateRun and frequency (run now vs schedule) but does not elaborate on other parameters like adRoots, domains, or dimensions, which are only partially described in the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool creates/updates a Sulvo advanced report (adUnit, dimensions, or customData) and can run immediately or schedule it. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_sulvo_advanced_report and list_sulvo_advanced_reports.

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

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

The description specifies the required API key and scope (reports:write) and notes that reports are emailed not returned, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sulvo_report.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'Save,' implying a mutation, but omits details like idempotency (despite idempotencyKey parameter), preflight requirements (consentDeclaration and runtimeDeclaration), or whether it overwrites existing revisions. Minimal disclosure.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is efficient. However, it could include slightly more context (e.g., the purpose of expectedVersion) without being verbose. No wasted words.

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

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

Given the lack of output schema and the tool being a mutation within a workflow (presence of lock and map siblings), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a placement revision is, how this save fits into the broader process, or what success/failure outcomes look like.

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 high (75%) and includes detailed descriptions for most parameters (workspaceId, outputFormat, idempotencyKey, input fields). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 states 'Save a placement revision,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly indicates the action and object, but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like lock_sulvo_placement_revision or map_sulvo_placement_backup.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description only lists required inputs without any context about prerequisites, workflow position, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions setting/changing answers but does not describe side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens to existing answers. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and key input requirements. There is no wasted text or unnecessary detail.

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 (nested input object, mutation, no output schema), the description is somewhat lacking. It does not explain the response format, error handling, or success/failure indicators. However, the input constraints are well-covered, making it minimally adequate.

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

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

The schema only describes 'input' as a generic object, but the description adds critical constraints: it must contain 'expectedVersion' and at least one of 'mode', 'goal', 'retagTiming'. This adds significant value beyond the schema. Other parameters have adequate descriptions in the schema itself.

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 sets or changes journey intake answers on the workspace. It uses specific verbs ('Set or change') and the resource ('journey intake answers'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but given the large number of siblings, the purpose is clear enough.

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

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

The description provides guidance on required input fields ('Input requires expectedVersion plus at least one of mode, goal, retagTiming'), which helps ensure correct usage. However, it lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It says 'create or resume' but does not disclose side effects, idempotency (though idempotencyKey parameter hints), or what happens to existing workspaces. The description is too brief to inform safe invocation.

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

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

Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be front-loaded better by leading with the main action, but it is appropriately short. Lacks structure like headings or bullet points.

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

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

Given 6 parameters, 3 enums, no output schema, and 38 sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to integrate with the sibling workflow. The agent lacks guidance for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter meaning; it does not mention any parameters. For the three undocumented parameters (domain, auditArtifactId, outputFormat), the description offers no help.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool creates or resumes an activation workspace, with a specific precondition (after audit and signup). It distinguishes from siblings like start_sulvo_signup and submit_sulvo_activation_workspace by naming the exact stage. However, the term 'activation workspace' is slightly vague.

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

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

The description implies when to use ('after the public audit and signup steps'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative tools among the 38 siblings. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a lead and verifies a domain, but omits behavioral traits like whether it is destructive, what happens on duplicate attempts, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that packs essential information (step number, actions, resource) without extraneous words.

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

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

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what 'unauthenticated signup lead' means, what the response looks like, or prerequisites (e.g., does the domain need to be registered?). More detail is needed for a first-step signup 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 75%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not elaborate on 'outputFormat' (which has an enum) or 'monthlyPageviews' (which has a description). The schema's descriptions for required params are adequate.

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: 'Run normal Sulvo signup step 1: verify the publisher domain and create the unauthenticated signup lead.' It uses a specific verb-resource structure (verify domain, create lead) and distinguishes from siblings that handle later steps like account creation or status checks.

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 this is the first step in a multi-step signup process ('signup step 1'), providing context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects, idempotency behavior (only hinted by idempotencyKey parameter), or whether the mutation is destructive. The agent is left guessing about safety.

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

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

The description is very short (two sentences). It is front-loaded but the second sentence ('Input requires expectedVersion and revisionId') may mislead as the required parameter is workspaceId, not those fields. It could be more precise.

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

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

Given no output schema, many sibling tools, and 4 parameters (including nested input), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the workflow context (e.g., relation to activation preflight or revision locking) or return format.

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 75%, baseline 3. The description adds value by specifying that the 'input' object requires 'expectedVersion' and 'revisionId,' which are not detailed in the schema. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the generic schema description.

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 'Submit the proven revision,' providing a verb and object, but 'proven revision' is ambiguous. The tool name specifies 'activation workspace,' so the overall purpose is somewhat clear but lacks precision.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., submit_sulvo_signup_documents, submit_sulvo_site_for_approval). No prerequisites or context for invocation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says the tool has no access to local files and doesn't submit documents, but fails to describe what the tool actually does or what side effects it has.

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

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

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key clarification. It efficiently communicates that the tool does not perform document submission.

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

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

Given the lack of parameters and the tool's nature (informational), the description is minimally adequate. It prevents misuse but doesn't provide a complete picture of what the tool can do, such as retrieving status or guidance.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter info beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 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 clarifies that the tool does not submit documents, which contradicts the name. It explains it's about document review but doesn't specify a concrete action. The purpose is confusing and not well-defined for an AI agent.

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

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

No explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus siblings. It only states that document submission happens elsewhere, implying this tool is for informational purposes, but doesn't provide clear context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool submits a 'bare site' and mentions 'expectedVersion', but it does not explain what happens after submission, whether it is destructive, or any side effects. The idempotencyKey parameter hints at mutability, but the behavioral implications are unclear.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the overall workflow, return values, or how this step fits into the larger 'Retag-after-approval' journey. The many siblings increase the need for context.

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 75%, and the description adds some context: 'Input requires expectedVersion', which is not fully detailed in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints of expectedVersion, nor does it clarify the role of outputFormat or idempotencyKey beyond what the schema provides.

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

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

The description clearly states the action: 'submit the bare site for Google approval' with the specific scope of 'ads.txt ownership only, no tags'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_sulvo_site_ownership (verification) and submit_sulvo_activation_workspace (workspace submission). However, the term 'expectedVersion' is mentioned but not defined, slightly reducing clarity.

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

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

The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Retag-after-approval journeys' implying a specific workflow phase, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_sulvo_activation_workspace or verify_sulvo_site_ownership. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'save optional company information,' which indicates a write operation but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, error handling, or what happens if the signup is not pending. For a tool with 10 parameters and a potentially critical step, more transparency is needed.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, front-loading the purpose ('Run normal Sulvo signup step 3'). It is concise with no wasted words. However, given the 10 parameters, a slightly longer description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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

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

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool behavior. It does not mention response format, error conditions, required prerequisites (e.g., pending signup), or how this step interacts with other signup stages. The description covers only the basic purpose.

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, meaning the description must compensate. The description adds only the vague grouping 'company information' without explaining individual parameters like outputFormat, employeeCount, or monthlyAdRevenue. It does not clarify that outputFormat controls response format, or that employeeCount and monthlyAdRevenue have constraints (exclusiveMinimum>0).

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 identifies the tool as 'Run normal Sulvo signup step 3: save optional company information for a pending Sulvo signup.' The verb 'save' and specific resource 'company information for a pending Sulvo signup' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing signup step 3, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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

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

The description implies usage by stating it is 'step 3' of the signup process, suggesting a sequence. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings. An agent would benefit from knowing prerequisites (e.g., an existing pending signup) or that this step is optional.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Verify', implying a read-only check, but does not confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), auth requirements, or what happens on failure. The agent gains little insight beyond the tool name.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is extremely terse and could benefit from additional structure or detail without losing conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'verify' entails, the meaning of 'stable placement container' or 'inert loader', or the role of parameters like 'outputFormat' and 'idempotencyKey'. The agent would lack essential context for proper usage.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, leaving the schema to carry the burden. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 identifies the action ('Verify') and the targets ('every stable placement container and the inert loader for the locked revision'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'verify_sulvo_signup_ads_txt' by focusing on placement installation, though it does not explicitly call out the differentiation.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other verification tools). The description gives no context about prerequisites, follow-up steps, or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read/check operation (verification) with no destructive hint, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, error states, or response structure. This is adequate but not thorough.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that conveys purpose and context with no wasted words. It earns its place efficiently.

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 lacks critical information about input parameters, output format, and error handling. In the context of many sibling tools, more detail is needed for the agent to correctly invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 2 parameters (userId required, outputFormat optional) with 0% coverage. The description omits any parameter details, failing to explain that userId likely represents the publisher domain or that outputFormat controls response type. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('verify') and the resource ('required Sulvo ads.txt lines'), and places it within a specific step ('Sulvo signup step 4b'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_sulvo_signup_ads_txt' (which retrieves lines) and 'verify_sulvo_site_ownership' (verifies domain ownership).

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions where the tool should not be used. It only states the core functionality.

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

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

Without annotations, the description does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. 'Verify' implies a check, but no explicit safety or mutability information is given.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary details about parameters, output, or behavior. It is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations.

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 does not explain return values, verification criteria, or prerequisites. With no output schema and sparse annotations, more context is needed for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; the 'input' object is vaguely described as 'Fields required by this journey action.'

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 verifies ads.txt and inert Sulvo head-tag ownership evidence, specifying the verb 'verify' and the resource (site ownership). This distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like verify_sulvo_placement_installation and verify_sulvo_signup_ads_txt.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or context (e.g., after account setup).

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