Tamgara

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 an important behavioral trait: the account is automatically created with a €1 voucher on the first paid call and the account_id is returned in that response, to be remembered and sent in future calls. This goes beyond a simple 'query balance' statement and provides actionable context about the account lifecycle.

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, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does and its purpose, the second explains the account lifecycle and how to use the parameter. 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 simple scope (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but the tool name 'account_balance' strongly implies the response is a balance. The account lifecycle details make it reasonably complete.

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

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

The schema provides 100% coverage for account_id with 'Bestehendes Konto (optional)'. The description adds crucial meaning: the account_id originates from the response of a paid call and should be remembered and sent along for future paid calls. This explains the parameter's role beyond the schema's generic 'existing account' label.

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 'Guthaben-Konto abfragen' (query account balance), a specific verb+resource, and adds context about it serving as a cost cap for paid AI calls. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling account_topup, which is for topping up rather than querying balance.

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 explains that free functions don't need an account and that the account is issued on first paid call, which implies when this balance query is relevant. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when', but the context is clear enough for an agent to determine appropriate usage.

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

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

Without annotations, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the top-up request is only recorded, not actually billed. This is valuable for agents to avoid expecting a real charge. Yet it doesn't clarify other aspects like return values or side effects on accounts.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a succinct warning. No filler words; every sentence contributes meaningful 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 simplicity (two optional params, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and caveat, but leaves ambiguity about the exact response or what happens after the request is recorded. For an agent to act on the result, more detail would help.

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 documents both parameters with descriptions (account_id, amount_cents). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on schema coverage, which is 100%.

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

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

The description opens with 'Guthaben aufladen' (top up credit), clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like account_balance by focusing on adding credit rather than checking it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 note 'Die Zahlung wird gerade eingerichtet' provides context that the tool does not currently execute real payments, giving a clear indication of when not to expect a charge. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternative tools or provide a full usage policy.

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 present, and the description only states the operation. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether the input PDF is modified, or any limitations. For a transformation tool, this is a substantial gap.

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 short and to the point, with the main purpose in the first sentence and the recipient structure in the second. No redundant or misleading content.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns or address edge cases such as handling encrypted PDFs or existing cover pages. The moderate complexity (nested object, base64 input) demands more 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 already provides descriptions for all parameters (75% coverage), and the description only lists the recipient fields without adding extra meaning or constraints. It does not clarify any parameter relationships beyond what the schema conveys.

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 ('Stellt einem PDF ein DIN-5008-Adressblatt voran') and the specific use case (Postversand). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on postal mail and the DIN-5008 standard.

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 context 'für den Postversand' makes the intended use obvious, but there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or which alternative tools to prefer (e.g., fax_* or envelope_create). The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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 must disclose behavioral traits fully. It describes the mechanism (ratio positions) and the actions (fill text/checkboxes), but does not state any side effects, prerequisites, permissions, or what the function returns (e.g., a modified PDF or success indicator). This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent deciding on 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the verb and the object. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information 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?

The tool has moderate complexity with nested objects and 5 parameters. The description gives a high-level workflow hint ('e.g., from a field recognition') and clarifies the non-AcroForm context, but it omits details about return values, error conditions, or whether the PDF is modified in place or returned as base64. This makes it somewhat incomplete for fully autonomous 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the purpose of ratio positions and field types, but these are largely already documented in the schema properties.

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 'fills recognized fields of a scanned (non-AcroForm) PDF' with specifics about writing text on lines and placing X in checkboxes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on scanned PDFs and ratio-based positioning, which is a distinct use case.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for scanned, non-AcroForm PDFs, using ratio positions from field detection. It implies a workflow and sets an exclusion (non-AcroForm), but does not explicitly name alternative tools like fill_pdf for comparison.

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 the time constraint but does not mention side effects of cancellation, failure modes if outside the window, or whether the operation is reversible. This leaves significant ambiguity 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter cancellation tool, the description covers the primary action and the critical time window. However, it lacks information about the return value, behavior outside the window, and any prerequisites, which is a moderate gap given the absence of an output schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% because the sole parameter 'id' has a description ('Brief-id'). The tool description adds no extra parameter details, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Storniert' (cancels) and the resource 'Brief' (letter), plus a specific condition (15-minute window). This distinguishes it from siblings like brief_confirm and brief_status.

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 15-minute window implies when this tool is applicable (only within that window), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It provides context but leaves the user to infer usage compared to other brief 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (submit) and a prerequisite (job_id) but does not disclose consequences such as irreversibility, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, using two short phrases that immediately convey the action and prerequisite. No redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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

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

The tool is simple with one fully documented parameter, but the description lacks information about return values or what happens after submission. Given no annotations and no output schema, a bit more context about the result or side effects would make it more complete, but it's adequate for basic selection and 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?

The input schema already provides full coverage for jobId ('job_id aus brief_create_checkout.'). The description repeats this information in prose ('Braucht die job_id aus brief_create_checkout') without adding new semantic detail, format, or constraints. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Nach Zahlung: Brief einreichen' (submit the brief after payment). It distinguishes from siblings like brief_create_checkout and brief_status by specifying the post-payment submission step. The verb 'einreichen' and resource 'Brief' are specific.

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 when to use the tool: after payment ('Nach Zahlung'). It also references the required prerequisite, the job_id from brief_create_checkout, which provides contextual sequencing relative to a sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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 key behavioral traits: the process is paid, requires a human to complete payment, and is not a free direct send. It also reveals the two-step workflow. However, it omits details like what happens if payment fails or the validity period of the checkout URL, leaving minor gaps.

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

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

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: one states the function and output, the other clarifies the payment workflow and exclusion. No 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It does mention the Stripe-Checkout-URL and implies the job_id in the phrase 'danach brief_confirm mit der job_id'. It also provides workflow context. However, it doesn't fully describe the response shape (e.g., whether the job_id is separate from the URL) or error scenarios, which would be useful but is not strictly necessary for a checkout initiation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to since every parameter has a description. It does not clarify relationships like which parameters are needed for a specific country or registered mail, but the schema suffices.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Startet den bezahlten Briefversand' and specifies the output (Stripe-Checkout-URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the paid nature and the follow-up tool brief_confirm, making its role in the workflow unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage context: use this to initiate paid letter dispatch, then call brief_confirm with the returned job_id. It also states a clear exclusion ('Kein kostenloser Direktversand über die KI'), effectively telling the agent 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds minimal context by mentioning 'verfügbar/bezahlt' (available/paid), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how errors are handled. Lacking these details, the behavioral transparency 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without 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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description sufficiently explains the action, but it does not describe the output or how to interpret the result. This leaves a gap in completeness, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates the impact.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description aligns with the empty schema, and the baseline score of 4 applies since no parameter documentation is needed.

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 'Prüft' (checks) and specifies the resource 'Briefversand (Post via LetterXpress)', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like fax_ping. It states exactly what is checked: availability and payment status.

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 intended usage is implied: to verify letter shipping availability before sending. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like fax_ping or account_balance, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only price lookup via 'Preis', but doesn't state that it doesn't send anything or describe the response structure. It doesn't contradict anything, but lacks detail.

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 effectively conveys the tool's core function. No superfluous 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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description could be more comprehensive, but for a simple quote tool it covers the essential purpose. It doesn't mention currency or response structure, but the name and description make the primary return value obvious.

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 fully documents each parameter, and the description adds semantic context by mapping 'Standard oder Einschreiben' to the registered flag and 'DE/AT/CH' to the country parameter. This enhances understanding 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 the tool provides a price for a postal letter (standard/registered) and lists supported countries. It distinguishes from sibling 'fax_quote' by specifically mentioning 'Postbrief', though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'calculate'.

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 obtaining letter prices, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative quote tools (e.g., fax_quote) or any prerequisites. It's minimally adequate.

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 only states it returns 'Status/Tracking' for a brief by ID, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any details about the response format, possible statuses, error conditions, or whether tracking history is included. The minimal wording leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core concept 'Status/Tracking' and immediately specifies the resource and required parameter. Every part of the brief description earns its place, making it highly 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description provides the essential information: it returns status/tracking for a brief by ID. However, without an output schema, the description does not explain what return values to expect, leaving a gap in completeness. An agent would likely know the tool's basic function but might not know the exact statuses or tracking data returned.

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 100% coverage for the single required parameter 'id' with description 'Brief-id.' The description's phrase 'per id' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic detail.

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's purpose as retrieving status/tracking information for a brief (letter) by ID. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', the noun phrase 'Status/Tracking' conveys the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like envelope_status and fax_status by specifying the target entity (brief).

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 does not mention sibling tools (e.g., envelope_status, fax_status) or specify contexts where this tool is preferred. The only implied usage is that it is for briefs, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds meaningful context: the ownerKey must be kept secret, and emails to recipients are only sent via that key, implying this tool does not email directly. It also describes the return values (process ID, ownerKey, signing links). However, it does not explicitly mention side effects like persistence or cost, nor reversibility, but the security disclosure is a strong positive.

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

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

The description is three sentences long, with no wasted words. Every sentence contributes: the first states the primary function, the second reveals outputs and the security-sensitive ownerKey, and the third clarifies field placement and email handling. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: the action, return values (process ID, ownerKey, signing links), field semantics, and a note on email delivery. It doesn't explicitly explain edge cases like isPublic or expiresDays, but those are encoded in the schema. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by mentioning the key return fields, making it reasonably complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the ratio-based placement ('per Ratio (0..1, y von oben)') in a more readable way and by noting the ownerKey's secrecy, which is not in the schema. It does not individually describe each parameter but reinforces key semantics, slightly exceeding the baseline.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action: 'Sendet ein PDF zur mehrparteiigen elektronischen Signatur (DocuSign-Stil).' It identifies the resource (PDF) and differentiates from sibling tools like envelope_send_invite, envelope_status, and envelope_void by focusing on creating a new envelope. The verb 'Sendet' is a bit broad but the DocuSign-style reference and the mention of returning signing links make it unequivocally about creating a signing envelope.

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 that this tool is used to create an envelope and obtain an ownerKey and signing links. It hints that emails are sent 'nur über den zurückgegebenen ownerKey' (only via the returned ownerKey), which suggests a separate step, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like envelope_send_invite or state when not to use this tool. There is clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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 mentions the authentication requirement (ownerKey) and the email action, but does not disclose any side effects, error conditions, or behavior on repeated calls. It does not state whether the operation is irreversible or how the response is structured.

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, front-loading the main action and including the key constraint. 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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the action, target, and authentication requirement. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not explain the return value, error handling, or prerequisites such as envelope existence, leaving some context gaps.

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

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

The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the 'Nur mit ownerKey' note, which is redundant with the schema's ownerKey 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 uses the specific verb 'Verschickt' (sends) and identifies the resource 'Signier-Einladung' (signing invitation) via email, making the action unambiguous. It also includes 'erneut' (again) to indicate resend capability, distinguishing it from envelope creation or status 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?

The description implies usage for sending or resending the signing invite, and mentions the ownerKey requirement, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus envelope_create or envelope_status, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool references.

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 does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what prerequisites exist beyond the given identifiers. The term 'Status' hints at a query but does not explicitly disclose safety characteristics or return 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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient and well-structured.

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

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

Given the simple nature of a status-check tool, the description provides a basic indication of the return content ('wer hat gesehen/unterschrieben'). However, without an output schema or annotations, it lacks details on return format, the optional withInputs parameter, and prerequisites, leaving some gaps.

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

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

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for 'id' and 'ownerKey', so the description adds no additional meaning beyond restating these parameters. The optional 'withInputs' parameter is not mentioned, but schema coverage is high, meeting the baseline.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving the status of a signing process ('Status eines Signier-Vorgangs'), including who has seen/signed. It specifies the key identifiers ('per id + ownerKey') and distinguishes itself from sibling envelope tools that create, send, upload, or void envelopes.

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 checking status after an envelope has been created, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.

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 of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool uploads a finished PDF and requires an ownerKey, but it does not mention whether the upload is destructive, irreversible, or if it changes the envelope status (e.g., finalizes it). The term 'final' in the tool name suggests a terminal action, but the description does not clarify side effects, success/error behavior, or whether the operation can be repeated.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a key constraint ('Nur mit ownerKey'). There is no extraneous text or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a tool with three well-documented parameters and achieves maximum clarity with minimal 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 low complexity (3 params, no nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description could still be more complete. It does not mention what the response or result is, whether the action is reversible, or how it fits into the envelope lifecycle (e.g., does it trigger a status change?). The description is too terse to fully cover the tool's role, especially considering the lack of annotations and output schema.

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

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

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for id, ownerKey, and pdfBase64, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some nuance by clarifying that pdfBase64 should be a 'finished' PDF (e.g., locally signed), which reinforces the schema's 'Fertiges PDF' but does not introduce new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. Overall, the description provides marginal added value on top of schema coverage.

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 'Lädt hoch' (uploads) and the resource 'fertige PDF für einen Vorgang' (finished PDF for a process), making the main action and object unambiguous. It also adds context by mentioning 'lokal signierte' (locally signed) and 'Nur mit ownerKey', which hints at the tool's specific use case within the envelope workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as envelope_create, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when a PDF is finished (e.g., locally signed) and ready to be uploaded, and it restricts usage to scenarios where an ownerKey is available. It does not explicitly state what contexts are inappropriate or mention alternatives like envelope_create or envelope_send_invite, leaving some ambiguity about how this tool fits relative to siblings. The guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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 mentions the ownerKey requirement, which is a behavioral precondition. However, it does not disclose possible irreversibility, effects on the signing process, or other side effects, leaving the agent with limited behavioral context.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. It communicates the core action and a key requirement 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?

For a simple mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key precondition but omits important context like irreversibility, return behavior, or error conditions. It is minimally 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described. The description adds emphasis on ownerKey being essential but does not provide any additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (Storniert/annulliert) and the resource (Signier-Vorgang), making it obvious this tool cancels a signing process. It distinguishes itself from sibling envelope_* tools, which deal with creation, status, and uploads.

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 this tool (when you want to cancel a signing process) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'Nur mit ownerKey' note is a constraint, not usage 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 provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the side effect (queuing a fax) and a key prerequisite (payment), which is helpful. However, it does not explain error handling, return behavior, or reversibility, leaving moderate gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence in German. It is front-loaded with the action and condition, and every word contributes to the meaning. No unnecessary details or repetition.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, the payment prerequisite, and the input source. It lacks information about return values or error states, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

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

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter jobId, and the tool description repeats exactly the same information as the schema property description. No additional meaning is added beyond what the schema already conveys, so a 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 clearly states the action: 'Fax in die Warteschlange geben' (put fax into the queue), with the specific condition 'Nach erfolgter Zahlung' (after payment). It also identifies the required input source (job_id from fax_create_checkout), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fax_create_checkout and fax_status.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: the tool is to be used after payment, and it requires a job_id from fax_create_checkout, implying a sequence with that sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the subject matter (supported countries and E.164 hints) but does not explicitly say whether the tool is read-only, what the response shape is, or if any prerequisites or side effects exist. This leaves notable gaps for a zero-parameter 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity and zero parameters, the description gives a basic idea of what to expect, but since there is no output schema, it fails to specify the return format (e.g., list of country names, ISO codes, dialing prefixes). This is a notable gap for a reference 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema. The description correctly implies that no additional input is required, matching the schema. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 providing supported fax destination countries and E.164 number hints. It uses a specific resource ('Fax-Zielländer') and differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on country compatibility and number formatting rather than operations like fax_quote or fax_status.

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 that this tool should be used when you need to know which countries are supported for fax or how to format numbers per E.164. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., list_providers), and lacks any exclusionary 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the staged payment behavior: a human must pay via the URL, then confirm with fax_confirm. It clearly states the free direct send is not possible. It doesn't detail return shapes or failure modes, but it covers the critical workflow context.

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

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

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the parenthetical note about no free dispatch, which is essential guidance without verbosity.

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 multi-step payment flow with no output schema, the description explains the complete sequence: start, get URL, human pays, then fax_confirm. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and how to proceed, although it could mention response structure or prerequisites.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-described. The description adds no extra parameter-specific details but mentions job_id, which is part of the workflow, providing slightly more context than the schema alone. 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Startet') and resource ('bezahlten Faxversand'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it returns a Stripe checkout URL, as opposed to fax_confirm (which confirms after payment) or fax_quote (which quotes).

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

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

The description gives explicit context: this is the paid fax flow, no free direct dispatch via AI, and it instructs the next step (fax_confirm with the job_id). It could explicitly name optional alternatives like fax_quote for estimates, but the guidance is strong.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states what the tool checks but does not mention side effects, read-only nature, or the format of the response. For a tool that appears to be a simple ping, these details are important for an agent to know what to expect.

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 directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no filler or redundant 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 simplicity and lack of parameters, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain what the output or return value will be (e.g., a boolean, a status object). Since there is no output schema, the description should provide this information to be fully complete.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. With 0 parameters, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly avoids adding unnecessary detail.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Prüft, ob Faxversand verfügbar ist und ob er bezahlt (Stripe) läuft' (checks if fax sending is available and if it is running via Stripe). This specific verb 'prüft' and the resource 'Faxversand' clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like fax_status (which likely checks a specific fax job) or fax_quote (which provides pricing).

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 context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The user is left to infer that it is a health check, but there is no explicit guidance on when to invoke 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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one important behavior: that the page count is derived from pdfBase64 if not specified ('Seitenzahl aus pdfBase64 abgeleitet, wenn nicht angegeben'). It does not mention other aspects like whether the operation is read-only, how pricing is calculated, or any prerequisites.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the key derivation rule. It is highly efficient with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric price, a formatted quote, or a price calculation object). The description only explains the input behavior, not the output. Additionally, it does not clarify how this tool relates to siblings like fax_create_checkout, leaving the agent uncertain about the full context of its use.

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?

While the input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful semantic context by stating the relationship between pdfBase64 and pages—that pages will be derived from the PDF if not provided. This clarifies the intended interplay of the optional parameters beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Preis für einen Faxversand' (price for a fax transmission). This identifies it as a pricing/quoting tool for faxes. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like fax_create_checkout or fax_confirm, which also relate to fax transactions.

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 the tool is used to obtain a price for sending a fax, and the clause about deriving page count from pdfBase64 suggests usage when a PDF is available. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools such as fax_create_checkout or fax_quote being a preliminary step.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the possible statuses but does not disclose error behavior for invalid IDs, whether the status is real-time, or if any side effects occur. For a mutating tool this would be critical, but for a status read it's still incomplete.

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 front-loads the key information (status retrieval and possible values) and includes no filler. It is concise and scannable.

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

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

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks details on the return format or error scenarios. It does enumerate valid statuses, which partially compensates for the absent output schema, but an agent might still be unsure whether the response is a plain string or a structured 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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (id) with a description 'Fax-id.' The tool description adds 'per id,' which simply restates the schema. No additional meaning is provided, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: it returns the delivery status of a fax by ID, with specific status values (queued/sending/success/failed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fax_confirm or fax_quote, which serve different purposes.

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 only states what it does, not the context for invoking it or any prerequisites. Sibling tools are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains signature placement ('in erkannte Signaturfelder gesetzt oder per manualPlacement platziert') and the purpose of lang for non-Latin fonts. It does not cover error handling, permission requirements, or the fact that the original PDF is not modified (only a new base64 is returned).

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

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

The description is three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then succinctly clarifies the two main sub-behaviors (answers and signature). No redundant or filler wording.

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 a complex tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, signature flow, and optional language handling. It omits details about extraText and filename, but these are secondary and adequately described in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use 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?

Even though schema coverage is 71%, the description adds significant meaning: it ties answers to inspect_pdf, clarifies the relationship between signaturePngDataUrl and manualPlacement, and explains lang's role in font selection. These are insights not directly inferable from the schema alone.

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 phrase 'Ein BELIEBIGES (nicht-Katalog-)PDF ausfüllen und optional signieren' clearly identifies the tool's function: fill any non-catalog PDF and optionally sign. It distinguishes from catalog-specific siblings like fill_template and specifies the output as a base64 PDF.

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 tool is for non-catalog PDFs and directs users to obtain field names from inspect_pdf ('answers = Feldname→Wert (aus inspect_pdf)'), implying a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like fill_template or state when not to use this tool beyond the catalog exclusion.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the value formats for answers (date, checkbox, radio/dropdown), the optional signing, and the base64 output, which is helpful. However, it omits potential side effects like credit costs or account creation, which are only in the schema descriptions, and does not discuss error behavior or reversibility.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and output. It packs essential details (answers format, get_template prerequisite) without unnecessary fluff, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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

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

For a tool with 8 parameters, a nested answers object, and no output schema, the description provides the core context: what it does, the answer format, and a key prerequisite. The detailed schema covers the remaining parameters, and the description mentions the base64 output to compensate for the missing output schema. It does not explain how to choose between slug/id or the ai/account_id interactions, but those are in the schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by detailing the answers object: date format as 'TT.MM.JJJJ', checkbox as booleans, and radio/dropdown as options. This goes beyond the schema's 'String or Boolean' and enriches the understanding of key parameters.

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 fills a template and optionally signs it, producing a PDF as base64. It names the specific resource (template) and action (fill), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like fill_pdf, so it lacks explicit sibling 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?

It provides a clear usage context by instructing to fetch field names with get_template first, which is a solid prerequisite. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion 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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the returned data (cancellation address, fax, typical notice period), but does not disclose any other behavior such as error handling, permissions, or response format. For a simple read operation this is adequate but not rich.

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 that conveys essence without waste. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical list quickly communicates what the provider object contains.

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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema and full parameter schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks information about response shape, error behavior, or how country is used, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the basic function 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (id, country), so the schema already documents them. The description mentions 'per id', which aligns with the required id parameter, but it does not elaborate on the optional country parameter or add any syntax/format details beyond the schema. 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 'Ein Anbieter per id' clearly indicates that the tool retrieves a provider by ID, and the parenthetical mention of specific fields (Kündigungsadresse, Fax, typische Frist) adds useful detail. It distinguishes from list_providers by implying a single-object fetch, though the verb 'get' is only implicit in the tool name.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_providers or other sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or typical use cases. The description provides no context for decision-making.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: field names are language-independent, and addressing can be via slug or id+lang. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, return format, or side effects (though likely read-only), leaving some ambiguity.

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-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool returns, the second explains addressing and language behavior.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain the return structure or error handling more explicitly. It covers the core purpose and parameter semantics but omits details about the response format, possible failure modes, or when includeBlankPdf would be relevant, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter logic by stating 'Adressierbar per slug ODER per id+lang', clarifying the OR relationship between parameters, which the schema's individual descriptions do not explicitly convey. This adds beyond what the schema provides, justifying a 4.

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 resource and action: 'Details + Feld-Schema einer Vorlage' retrieves template details and field schema. It specifies what is included (fields, legal space) and how to address it (slug or id+lang), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_templates (searching) and fill_template (filling).

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 (you need a slug or id+lang), but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus search_templates or fill_template. It provides addressing prerequisites but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions, so some guidance is present but not fully developed.

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 discloses that the tool returns counts of templates, languages, and legal areas, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, authorization requirements, or return format. The description is minimal and does not add behavioral context beyond the basic overview statement.

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 German sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Überblick über Tamgara') and lists the included data elements. There is no wasted wording, and it is easily scannable for an agent.

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

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

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and the key data points returned (counts of templates, languages, legal areas). While it does not specify exact response structure, the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for more detail. It is complete enough for the agent to select it correctly.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is therefore 100% by default. The description correctly avoids adding parameter information since none exist. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool, and the description is sufficiently clear without needing to elaborate on inputs.

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 provides an overview of Tamgara, specifically counts of templates, languages, and legal areas. This clearly identifies the resource and the nature of the output. It distinguishes from siblings like list_languages or list_categories by focusing on aggregate counts rather than individual listings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 the tool is for getting a high-level summary, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives. Given siblings like list_languages, list_categories, and get_provider, the description lacks direct comparison or exclusion guidance. The context is clear enough that a user would use it for an overview, but no when/when-not 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It implies a read-only analysis by listing extracted data, which is effective for an inspection tool. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or mention limitations, so it's slightly above average but not perfect.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and provides a structured list of output features. Every part contributes value with no redundant wording.

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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main return categories and its role as a precursor to filling. It could specify the exact format of page sizes or field types, but the level of detail is adequate for tool selection.

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 single parameter pdfBase64 is fully described in the schema with 'Das PDF als base64.' and the description repeats the base64 mention without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.

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

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

The description uses the specific verb 'analysieren' and names the exact resource (PDF as base64), along with concrete output details (page counts/sizes, form fields, signature fields). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fill_pdf or pdf_from_images.

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 states it is the 'Grundlage zum Ausfüllen fremder PDFs', which implies use before filling tools. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by noting the count in the output, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose potential sorting, inclusion of empty categories, or response format. For a simple read-only listing tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 phrase that conveys the essential information without any filler. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the resource (template categories) and the output characteristic (count). It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though minor details like order or grouping are omitted.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter explanations. This is the baseline score for tools with no parameters.

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 returning template categories with counts, using a specific resource (Vorlagen-Kategorien) and examples (cancellation, sale, rental). It distinguishes from sibling list tools (list_languages, list_locales, list_providers) by focusing on categories. The lack of an explicit verb is minor, but the intent is unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it returns, without mentioning scenarios or exclusions. Sibling tools exist for other list types, but no differentiation or selection criteria is offered.

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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination or filtering applies, or any side effects. For a list operation this is less critical, but the description is silent on all behavioral aspects.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose and output details without any filler or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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

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

For a simple zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the main output aspects (languages, template count, RTL flag, legal areas). It lacks details like ordering or filtering, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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

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

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about what the returned data contains, which is appropriate given there are no parameters to document.

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 all supported base languages and specifies the output attributes (template count, RTL flag, legal areas). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_categories and list_providers.

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

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

Usage is implied by the name and description—the tool is for listing base languages—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as list_locales or list_categories. No exclusions or alternative links 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 the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns all locales and includes a localized legal phrase, but does not state whether it is a read-only operation, any pagination behavior, or potential side effects. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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: 'Alle Locales (Sprache×Land) mit lokalisierter Rechtsphrase.' Every word contributes meaning, with no filler 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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the specific data included. It does not explain return format, but that is not required when no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (by definition). The description adds context about what the output contains (locales and legal phrase), which is helpful. Per rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'alle Locales (Sprache×Land)' with a localized legal phrase. This specifies the verb (list), the resource (locales), and the content (language×country plus legal phrase), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_languages or list_providers.

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: an agent needing locale data with a localized legal phrase would use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It is implied rather than explicit.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool lists, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, default limits, or response structure. For a simple list operation this is minimally adequate but not rich; it earns a 3.

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 efficient sentence plus a short list of countries and an option. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 simplicity, a full output schema is absent but the description is largely complete: it clarifies the domain (cancellations), countries, and optional search. It does omit mention of the 'category' parameter, but that is detailed in the schema, so the threshold for completeness is met.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, including limit, query, country, and category. The description only reiterates countries and free-text search, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and no extra semantics are provided.

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

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

The description clearly states it lists providers for cancellations, including the specific attributes (address/fax/deadline) and countries (de, at, ch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_provider (singular fetch) and search_templates (templates), and the German term 'Anbieter' is specific 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 clear context: when you need cancellation-related provider details and the supported countries, this is the tool. It also mentions optional free-text search, implying usage for filtering. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (creating a PDF from base64 images) and one-image-per-page behavior, but does not mention return values, output handling, or side effects. For a simple conversion tool this is adequate but not rich.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys purpose, input, and output format 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?

For a tool of this simplicity, the description covers input, process, and page layout. It lacks explicit output details, but given the schema and the context of sibling tools, it is sufficiently complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds supported formats (PNG/JPEG) and the one-image-per-page behavior, which goes beyond the schema, adding meaningful 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 the verb 'bauen' (build) and the resource 'PDF aus Bildern', specifying one image per page and the use case (photo/scan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fill_pdf or add_cover_page.

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

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

The description provides clear context: converting photos/scans to PDF with one image per page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the search fields and output (slugs), and that filtering is optional, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose edge cases like no results or sorting, nor does it explicitly say it is a non-mutating operation, though the verb 'suchen/filtern' makes this unlikely.

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 core action and filtering capabilities, then stating the output. It is compact and every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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

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

For a search tool with 5 optional params and no output schema, the description covers the essential search fields and result type (slugs). However, it omits details like pagination, sorting, or result structure beyond slugs, and does not mention the limit parameter's default behavior, which the schema does document. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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

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

Schema covers all 5 parameters, but the description adds value by clarifying that query searches across title/slug/description and that country is ISO-2. It also indicates category comes from list_categories (though schema already says this). This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool searches/filters templates using free text and optional filters (language, country, category). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_template (single template retrieval) and fill_template (template execution) by focusing on discovery. The scope (title/slug/description) is explicit.

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

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

The description implies the tool is for finding templates, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_template. It mentions returning slugs for further use, which suggests it precedes template operations, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided. A more explicit statement like 'use this to find templates before filling' would be clearer.

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