Tulimoa

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

Discloses that any edit triggers admin review and sets status to pending, with re-approval needed for public reappearance. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 sentences, each adding value: purpose, constraints, side effects, auth requirement. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Covers purpose, key parameter (slug), side effects, and auth. Lacks detail on parameter semantics but otherwise adequate for a tool with 8 params and no output schema.

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 only 13% (slug described). Description adds general context ('update fields') but does not explain individual parameters like mcp, url, tags, etc., beyond schema 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?

Description states 'Update fields of a listing you own' with a clear verb (update) and resource (listing). It distinguishes from siblings like submit_listing (create) and get_listing (read).

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?

Specifies editing by slug and requires write-scoped Tulimoa login. Mentions limitations (cannot change ownership/review status) but does not explicitly state when not to use vs 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 bears full weight. It discloses the fetched content (long description, features, etc.) and uses 'fetch' which implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, rate limits, or prerequisites, but given the simple read nature, it is sufficient.

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 only, both dense with information. No filler words, each sentence serves a purpose: first describes functionality, second provides usage context.

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 fetch endpoint with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists all key returned fields. Given the low complexity and complete parameter documentation, the description is fully adequate.

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% for the single parameter 'slug' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full detail of a single Tulimoa listing', listing specific fields returned. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing usage after search_listings for depth on a specific tool.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after search_listings when the user wants depth on a specific tool.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and implies it is not for broader listings or categories.

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 exist, but the description is straightforward about listing categories. It lacks details on return format or completeness, but for a simple tool it 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and usage guidance, with no wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for the simple list operation.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter info since none are needed.

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 it lists category ids and labels for Tulimoa listings, distinguishing it from siblings 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?

Explicitly advises calling this first when needing a valid category for search_listings, providing clear context.

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 discloses that it 'Returns only approved, published listings', which is important context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The read-only nature is implied by the search function, but a more explicit statement would improve 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 concise with three sentences, no repetition, and no fluff. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second lists capabilities, and the third provides usage guidance and a clear next step. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of 7 parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, filtering options, result constraints (approved/published), and a follow-up action. It lacks details on default behavior beyond what is in the param descriptions (e.g., default sort), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, with all 7 parameters having descriptions in the input schema. The description adds high-level context by listing filtering dimensions (topic, category, pricing, MCP support, EU hosting) but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already offers. Thus, it adds marginal value over the schema, meeting the baseline expectation of 3.

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 purpose: 'Find SaaS tools in the Tulimoa directory'. It uses strong verbs like 'Find' and 'Discover' and lists specific filtering dimensions (topic, category, pricing, MCP support, EU hosting). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_listing' by suggesting a follow-up call for full details, making its role as a search tool 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'for any find/recommend a tool for X request'. It also provides a clear follow-up instruction to call get_listing. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context makes it clear that this is for discovery, not for direct access or modification. Alternatives are implied through sibling tools.

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 provided, but the description discloses key behavior: listing starts as 'pending' and appears only after admin review. Also mentions authentication requirement.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: what it does, status behavior, prerequisite, and guidance for category.

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 and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., listing ID). Given 8 parameters and 7 required, it should explain the response or follow-up steps. Also lacks mention of idempotency or rate limits.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it reiterates using list_categories for the category field, but the schema already says that. No additional parameter context.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'a new listing in the Tulimoa directory', distinguishing it from siblings like edit_listing (edit) and list_categories (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?

Explicit prerequisites: 'Requires a write-scoped Tulimoa login' and 'Use list_categories first to pick a valid category id.' Also notes pending status and admin review for visibility.

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