Proofie

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does substantial work: it discloses that no charge occurs at call time, that the resulting plan is a recurring subscription until cancelled, and that the agents plan requires the owner to tick a consent box on the payment page. Missing are auth requirements, whether repeated calls create duplicate links, and link expiry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its key constraints, with no filler. The opening is a verbless fragment and the semicolon chaining is dense, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description covers the salient behavioral facts an agent needs: no immediate charge, recurring billing, and the consent requirement. Only currency semantics and call-repetition behavior are left unaddressed for a 5-parameter 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, and it does for plan (starter/agents), billing (month default or year) and the site/email pairing. It says nothing about the currency parameter, which is one of five left entirely undocumented.

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 identifies the resource precisely as a checkout link pre-filled with the plan, site and email, and adds the concrete plan values (starter or agents) that the schema leaves unenumerated. It does not name a sibling to differentiate from, but the contrast with start_free_test/get_plans is implicit in the paid-checkout framing.

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 useful post-call workflow guidance ('hand the link to the user, who checks it and pays on the payment page') but never states when to pick this over start_free_test or get_plans, nor any precondition for creating a checkout. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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 whole burden and only discloses one failure mode ('without it you get an error'). It says nothing about read-only semantics, permission requirements, or rate limits, and it frames key as mandatory when the schema actually marks only audit_id as required – an inconsistency the agent will trip over.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then the parameter caveat. Almost no waste; only the vague 'you get an error' phrasing could be tightened.

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?

An output schema means return values need not be explained, but for a two-parameter tool the description leaves the required parameter undefined and misrepresents which parameter is optional. That omission is central to calling the tool correctly, not incidental.

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 does an excellent job on 'key' (report key from the report link, or the order id from the payment page) but never mentions audit_id, which is the one required parameter – leaving the agent with no idea what to put there.

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 resource and the retrieved aspect ('Status of a paid audit'), which is a recognizable read operation. It is implicitly distinguished from the sibling get_free_test_status by the word 'paid', but that contrast is never made 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?

It gives one hard usage constraint – supply the key or the call errors – which is genuinely actionable. It offers no guidance on when to use this versus get_free_test_status or the other siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. auth or ownership of the audit).

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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether polling is expected, what terminal states exist, or how failures surface. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the call pattern is left entirely undisclosed.

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. It is efficient, though the ambiguous pronoun 'it' costs a little clarity for no savings in length.

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 has an output schema covering return values, so the description need not be long. Still, it omits the polling/lifecycle guidance and explicit linkage to start_free_test that an agent needs to use it confidently.

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% for the single request_id parameter, so the description must compensate; it only indicates that the value originates from a prior response, without format or example. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but leaves the parameter loosely specified.

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 the resource (a free test request) and the operation (retrieving its status), which is enough to separate it from siblings like start_free_test and create_checkout. It stops short of a full verb phrase, 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?

'by the request_id it returned' hints that this is a follow-up call to a prior submission, but the antecedent of 'it' is never named, so the agent must infer start_free_test. There is no statement of when not to use it or what to do while the test is pending.

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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it is silent on everything that matters: it never states the tool is a read-only lookup, that it takes no arguments, or that it has no side effects. The only behavioral signal is the implied static catalog nature of a zero-parameter call, and the mention of USD/INR hints at data scope but not 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 short fragment with no wasted words, and the core content (plans, prices, inclusions) is front-loaded. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, which slightly weakens readability but costs nothing in length.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is legitimately omitted, and a zero-parameter tool needs little else. However, the description gives no hint of when an agent should reach for it versus the sibling checkout/test tools, which is the one gap that matters for a catalog lookup in a purchase flow.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents or invents 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 names the resource precisely — plans, prices in two currencies, and feature inclusions — which goes beyond a tautological restatement of 'get_plans'. It lacks an explicit verb, so the retrieval action is only inferred from the tool name, and it makes no attempt to differentiate from siblings (create_checkout, get_audit_status), though none of those overlap in purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of whether this should be called before create_checkout, whether pricing is region-specific, or whether results are cached. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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 and does so well: it discloses that an email confirmation is sent, that the test does not run until the link is clicked, and that results arrive by email. It omits edge behavior such as duplicate requests or error conditions for invalid URLs/emails.

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 the behavioral consequence. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the async email flow is the key thing an agent must convey to the user. Coverage would be complete with a note on repeat calls or failure handling, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning, and it partially does by mapping url to 'the website' and email to 'the email the user gave you', warning against inventing an address. It adds no format constraints for the URL or validity expectations for the email.

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 action and resource: requesting a free website test. The async confirm-then-run flow implicitly separates it from the polling siblings get_free_test_status and get_audit_status, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied by the request flow rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the entry point before get_free_test_status. There is no explicit guidance on when not to call it, e.g. if a test is already pending, or how it relates to the sibling status tools.

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