Tensorust Ontology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and closed-dataset behavior are covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope constraints (US-only, turbine aircraft only) and previews the returned fields, but says nothing about multiple matches when searching by owner name, result limits, or how the two parameters interact.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the lookup key stated before the returned fields, and no filler. The parenthetical alternative mode is slightly compressed but does not obscure the meaning.

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

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

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it defines both inputs, the domain restriction, and the shape of the response. The remaining gap is ambiguity around owner-name searches returning multiple aircraft and any result-size behavior.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: n_number is identified as an N-number and owner as a registered owner name, with the parenthetical framing them as alternative lookup modes. It falls short of stating whether the parameters are mutually exclusive or which takes precedence if both are given.

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

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

The description names a specific verb (look up) and a specific resource (US turbine aircraft by N-number or registered owner name), then enumerates the exact fields returned: registered owner, owner-trustee status, model, and FCC radio altimeter rebate category and proposed rebate. This is clearly distinct from siblings like who_owns_home or lookup_organization, which target different entity types.

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

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for aircraft ownership questions, and the parenthetical shows two lookup modes (N-number vs. owner name). However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling tools, and no statement about which mode to prefer or what happens if both or neither parameter is supplied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes beyond that by disclosing the pricing model ($0.05/call via x402 USDC on Base), the alternative auth path (Tensorust key), and the difference in return content between free and paid tiers. Missing is what happens on payment failure or whether the x402 terms are returned as an error-like response.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The pricing details are compressed but jargon-heavy (x402, USDC on Base) and partly duplicate the schema's `full` description, which slightly undercuts efficiency.

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

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so at a useful level: 'card', 'counts and previews', 'every linked object and property'. Combined with the pricing/auth disclosure, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error and payment-failure behavior is unaddressed.

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

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

Schema coverage is 50%, with `id` undocumented in the schema but explained in the description via concrete prefixed examples, which is real added meaning. The `full` explanation largely repeats the schema text, and the cost/auth implications are the genuinely new part.

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

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

States a specific verb ('Expand') and resource ('ontology id ... into its card') and gives three concrete id-format examples (org:, cg:, rule:), so an agent can recognize valid input. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling lookup_organization or search_organizations, which keeps it from a 5.

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 does give a clear when-to-use signal for the `full` flag: omit for free preview, set true for every linked object and property. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over lookup_organization or search_organizations, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face given the sibling set.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: free tier returns counts and previews only, full=true returns everything and costs $0.05 per call via x402 USDC on Base or a Tensorust key, including that the tool itself emits x402 payment terms. That said, it omits what happens when the name does not resolve, whether partial matches are returned, or any rate/caching 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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the tier/pricing split. Some redundancy exists between the description's 'full=true: ... $0.05 per call over x402' and the identical information in the schema, but no sentence is filler.

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

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

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return contents by enumeration. For a two-parameter lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and readOnly annotations, the main remaining gap is failure behavior on no-match or ambiguous names, which a resolving tool should specify.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema's own parameter descriptions already explain full=true, the price, x402 payment terms, and the free preview. The description largely restates that same free/full distinction rather than adding new semantics such as name-matching tolerance or acceptable name formats. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve a company or organization name to its Tensorust Ontology card') and enumerates the returned content: entity type, data sources, linked objects by type, and applicable federal rules. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling search_organizations, so the boundary between resolving a known name and searching for one is left implicit.

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 free-preview vs full=true distinction gives a real decision rule, including cost, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to use this instead of search_organizations (finding a name) or get_object (fetching a card by id), which are the most likely confusions for an agent.

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

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context beyond that: truncation behavior (free tier returns only the first 25 names), what the paid tier adds (full named list with evidence), and the exact cost and payment mechanism ($0.25/call over x402 in USDC on Base, or free with a Radar/Ontology key). Cost and result-capping are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before deciding to call.

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 resource and followed by the mode/cost rules; the parenthetical rule examples are dense but earn their place by showing the id conventions. Pricing is repeated in both the description and the schema, which is mild redundancy but justified given the unusual x402 payment model.

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, and the description carries that burden reasonably: it tells the agent to expect counts, organization names, and (on the paid path) supporting evidence, plus the 25-name ceiling. It stops short of describing the record fields for each organization or how evidence is formatted, which leaves some uncertainty about the exact return shape.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the full parameter's description already spells out the pricing, evidence, and 25-name cap, so the description largely restates schema content. It does add the semantic coupling that full=true only matters when rule_id is supplied ('add full=true'), which is a small value-add over the schema's 'With rule_id' phrasing.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List the federal rules Tensorust models') and immediately grounds it with five concrete rule examples and the payload shape (counts plus first organizations). This reverse-lookup direction (rule -> organizations) is clearly distinct from sibling tools like lookup_organization and search_organizations, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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

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

Gives clear mode selection: omit rule_id to list all rules, pass rule_id for a single rule, add full=true for the complete named list with evidence. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the organization-centric siblings (e.g., 'use this to find who a rule touches, not to look up a company'), so the alternative-routing is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a hard cap of 15 matches and the shape of each result (ids, types, source counts, links), which matters because there is no output schema.

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

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

Two short sentences, zero filler: the operation comes first and the return contract second. Nothing needs to be trimmed or reordered.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, stating the result cap and returned fields makes this largely complete. The remaining gap is the undefined matching behavior and the unspecified scope of "other objects".

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 has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. "By name" establishes that query is a name string, but it says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs prefix, case sensitivity) or whether other object types are matched by the same field.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Search organizations, control groups and other objects by name"), and the title "Search the ontology" adds scope. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling lookup_organization, and "other objects" is left vague, so the agent cannot fully tell the two search-like tools apart.

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 only implied: calling it a name search suggests free-text lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and the closely related sibling lookup_organization is never mentioned. The agent has to infer routing from the sibling's name alone.

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

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

Annotations only cover the read-only and closed-world profile; the description goes further by disclosing that results include the parent control group, portfolio home count, and an institutional-investor classification under the 350+ home ROAD Act threshold. It doesn't describe null/empty behavior when an address is outside coverage, which is the main remaining behavioral 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?

Two sentences with zero filler: capability and returned fields first, then the coverage constraint. The county list is long but is load-bearing for deciding whether to call the tool at all.

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

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately: owner of record, parent entity, home count, ROAD Act flag. Combined with the coverage limits, an agent has enough to call and interpret it; only the not-found case is unspecified.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented with format hints ('5-digit ZIP', example street address), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the US-scoping constraint on the address, which the schema does not state.

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 a specific verb and resource plus required inputs: 'Given a US street address and ZIP, return the owner of record.' The home-ownership focus is clearly distinct from aircraft_owner and the organization-lookup siblings, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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

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

It gives a concrete applicability envelope: entity-owned single-family homes in 17 named large counties. That tells the agent when the tool will return nothing useful. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use outside that coverage, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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