Trellistate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds that it returns 'full structured details' and works by ID or slug, but does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, 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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema data.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is fully self-contained. It clearly communicates what the tool does, how to identify the target listing, and what kind of response to expect ('full structured details'). No critical information is missing.

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 the id parameter described as 'Public listing ID or slug.' The description adds a concrete example ('lst_abc123...') which helps clarify expected format. This goes slightly beyond the schema 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 action with a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('listing'), and scope ('single listing by its public ID or slug'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_listings and list_recent by emphasizing retrieval of a single specific listing rather than a search or list.

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 have a public ID or slug for a specific listing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear that this is for singular lookup. No alternative tool is named, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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, so the read-only behavior is known. The description adds the 'active registered' filter, which is a useful behavioral nuance, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or output format.

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

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

Two sentences with no waste. The core purpose and a usage context are 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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate. It clarifies scope (active agents, directory) and a use case, though it doesn't describe return shape beyond 'list agents' (no output schema needed).

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

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter is self-explanatory but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's constraints.

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 'List active registered AI agents on Trellistate' - a specific verb with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_recent' and 'search_listings' by targeting agents, not listings.

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 a use case ('agent-to-agent discovery') but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use. This is implied usage rather than explicit 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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds behavioral context by specifying that only 'active' listings are returned and that the ordering is by 'most recently updated'. This informs the agent of implicit filtering and sorting not visible in the schema. It also implies a lightweight read operation suitable for repeated crawling, which is useful behavioral transparency.

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

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

The description is two sentences: the first states the core function with a clear verb and resource, the second provides a usage context. There is zero redundant wording, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the active filter, recency ordering, and typical usage. While it does not specify the return format, the absence of an output schema lowers the burden, and the description covers the essential decision-making information 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?

The schema covers the 'since' parameter with a description, but 'limit' lacks a semantic description. The tool description clarifies 'N' as the limit parameter, effectively adding meaning to it. With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates partly by tying 'N' to the limit, while also hinting that 'since' relates to 'recently updated'. This adds value beyond the raw 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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'N most recently updated active listings', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_listing (specific listing), search_listings (filtered search), and list_agents (agents). The temporal ordering and 'active' filter are explicitly stated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for periodic agent crawls', which tells the agent when to choose this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is strong enough to guide selection. The phrase 'periodic agent crawls' implies a polling or regular-check scenario, which is adequate 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?

Beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=true, the description adds useful behavioral details: it returns only 'active' listings and defaults to the most recently updated when no filters are provided. This gives the agent a clearer picture of what to expect, though it omits details like pagination or result format, which are not covered by annotations.

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 a concise note on default behavior. Every sentence provides value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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

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

For a tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no sibling-based guidance, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what fields a returned listing contains, how results are sorted beyond 'recently updated', whether pagination is supported, or what 'active' means. The openWorldHint and readOnlyHint are given, but the description still leaves many operational details unexplained.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the schema only documents descriptions for about 54% of the 13 parameters. Unannotated parameters like sort, limit, min_price, max_price, listing_type, and property_type lack explanations, and the description does not compensate. This leaves the agent guessing on a significant subset of 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 clearly states the tool searches active Trellistate property listings, with a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_listing or list_recent, the 'Search' verb and the filter-optional behavior indicate its role as a search tool, though it may overlap with list_recent's recent-listings functionality.

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 implied usage context: 'All filters are optional; with no filters it returns the most recently updated listings' suggests it can be used both for filtered searches and for retrieving recent listings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_recent or get_listing, nor does it mention any exclusions or 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?

readOnlyHint=false already indicates a write operation, and the description adds the authentication requirement ('Requires a registered Trellistate agent API key') and lists supported inquiry types. It does not disclose side effects, response format, or rate limits, but given the annotation covers mutation, this is adequate.

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 conveys the core purpose and key inquiry types without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place and the structure is 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 has 5 parameters (including a nested object), no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation. The description covers the action, inquiry types, and auth requirement, but omits details about expected responses, optional parameter relationships (e.g., contact_email when inquiry_type is showing_request), and whether structured_payload is required for certain types. This leaves gaps for an agent invoking 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 only 40% (listing_id and structured_payload have descriptions, while message, inquiry_type, and contact_email do not). The description compensates partly by enumerating the inquiry_type enum values, but it does not explain the semantics of message or contact_email, so the added value is limited.

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 verb ('Submit') and resource ('a structured inquiry on a listing'), and enumerates inquiry types (general, showing request, offer of interest, etc.). This differentiates it from sibling read-only tools like get_listing and search_listings.

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 context: it is for submitting inquiries, while siblings retrieve listings/agents. It also mentions the prerequisite of a registered Trellistate agent API key. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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