Denied-Boarding Deferral Auction

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: an Authorization requirement and the accepted payment rails (trial, subscription, $1.99 x402). However, it says nothing about what "clearing" actually does — whether it deletes the contention event, is idempotent, is reversible, or what happens on failure.

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 no filler and the auth requirement placed last where it is easy to scan. Its only flaw is being under-specified rather than wasteful, which is penalized under contextual completeness.

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 four required, entirely undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is far short of what an agent needs to construct a valid call. Nothing in the definition explains the domain model the parameters encode.

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?

All four required parameters (resource, capacity, ceiling, claims) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. An agent has no way to know what value shape "resource" expects or how "capacity" and "ceiling" relate to "claims."

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?

It states a verb and a resource ("Clear one contention event") and adds that the event may be a trial, subscription allowance, or $1.99 x402 payment. But "contention event" and "clear" are the tool's own private vocabulary, so an agent cannot tell concretely what state changes or how this differs from gate_ledger and register_claim.

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?

"Requires Authorization" is a prerequisite, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over the sibling tools gate_ledger or register_claim, and no exclusion conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the two most important facts, that this is a read operation and that auth is required. It says nothing about what the ledger contains, whether results are scoped/paginated, or side effects, though as a zero-param read that gap is modest.

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 with zero waste; the action and the auth constraint are both 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?

For a zero-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description is minimally sufficient: it tells the agent it needs auth. But 'gate ledger' is an undefined domain term, and nothing indicates what data comes back or whether the operator identity is implicit, leaving real questions unanswered.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies, with a small deduction because the description does not clarify whether 'this operator' is inferred implicitly from the caller's credentials.

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 ('Read this operator's gate ledger'), which is enough to separate it from the mutation-flavored siblings clear_gate and register_claim. It never explicitly names those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'Requires Authorization' line gives a prerequisite that constrains when the tool can be called, which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to clear_gate or register_claim as alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the authorization requirement, but it does not explain mutation effects, idempotency, conflict behavior, or what registering a claim actually changes.

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. The parenthetical field list is compact, though the jargon makes the terseness somewhat cryptic rather than fully 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?

With five parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. It states the action and auth requirement but leaves the parameter semantics and response behavior largely undocumented.

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 explain parameter meaning. It names ask, max_wait_windows, and never_bump but gives no semantic explanation, and it omits claim_id and resource entirely.

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 gives a specific action and resource: 'Register a claim,' with a qualifier about the advance delay-cost declaration. It is clear enough to identify the operation, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings clear_gate and gate_ledger.

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 only operational guidance is 'Requires Authorization,' which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. It says nothing about when to choose register_claim versus the sibling gate tools or when not to use it.

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