Tern

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a non-destructive reporting operation but does not explain what happens behind the scenes (e.g., whether data is stored, sent, or logged), nor any side effects or requirements.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning; there is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not cover required fields, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'success' and 'agent friction' (likely agentSteps), but does not clarify the meaning of requestId, latencyMs, failureReason, or selectedServer. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal 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 tool's function: reporting whether a resolver request worked and the agent friction involved. It uses a specific verb ('report') and a clear resource ('resolver request'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve (which likely performs the request) and submit_mandate.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer when report_outcome should be invoked.

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 transparently describes the internal workflow: searching the Registry, actively validating candidate surfaces, falling back to live web search, and preserving capability-gap telemetry even for weak matches. This gives a meaningful view of the tool's behavior beyond just 'resolves requests', though it omits details like output format or failure modes.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the process and telemetry behavior in two additional sentences. Every sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy, though it could arguably be streamlined. The structure is effective for quick scanning.

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 moderately complex with seven parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain how parameters like budget, deadline, location, or categoryHint affect resolution behavior. It provides a good high-level workflow but is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with all relevant context – particularly expected inputs and outputs.

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 only 14%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. Only 'task' is described in the schema; budget, currency, deadline, location, telemetry, and categoryHint receive no semantic explanation in either the description or the schema. The description's general mention of 'real-world capability request' vaguely implies some context but provides no concrete guidance for these six 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's purpose: resolving real-world capability requests through a multi-step search process. It goes beyond the generic verb 'resolve' by specifying the MCP Registry search, validation, and web search fallback, which distinguishes it from vaguer tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like report_outcome or submit_mandate.

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 are any 'real-world capability request' and specifies a fallback strategy ('when native coverage is weak or absent'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so the guidance is contextually implied but not comparative.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: that supplier contact and spending are not enabled yet, which implies the tool only records a demand without executing purchases. However, it does not mention whether the operation is a create/update, idempotency, or other side effects, leaving 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add the key limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

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

Given the tool has 8 parameters, 2 enums, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain required parameters, how authority levels affect behavior, or what the result of submission looks like. The single limitation note is valuable but insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent receives no semantic guidance for the 8 parameters. The description only conveys the overall purpose, not what 'task', 'authority', 'maxBudget', etc. mean or how they should be used.

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 'Record' with the resource 'high-intent demand', clearly stating the tool's function. It also adds a distinguishing constraint ('Supplier contact and spending are not enabled yet') that separates it from sibling tools like report_outcome and resolve.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It implies a high-intent demand scenario but never mentions report_outcome or resolve, nor any exclusion criteria. The only hint is the 'not enabled yet' limitation, which is not a usage directive.

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