Tulimoa

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that edits trigger admin review and listing becomes pending, and reappears only after re-approval. It also mentions the authentication requirement. It does not cover rate limits or other side effects, but core behavior is transparent.

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, each serving a purpose: purpose, constraints/consequences, and authentication. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary 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 8 parameters and low schema coverage, the description covers the key behavioral effect (review) and ownership constraint. An output schema exists but its content is not described. The description is adequate but lacks parameter detail and error handling guidance.

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% (only slug described). The description only generically mentions 'fields of a listing' without detailing specific parameters like name, url, tags, etc. It does not add meaning beyond the schema for most 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 states the tool updates fields of a listing the user owns, by slug. It explicitly mentions constraints like not changing ownership or review status, and distinguishes from siblings like get_listing, submit_listing, etc.

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 says when to use: to update your own listing. It lists constraints and consequences (admin review on edit). It implies when not to use (e.g., for viewing, use get_listing) but does not explicitly mention 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool fetches full details and lists returned fields, but lacks information about potential errors, rate limits, or permissions. For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 wasted words; purpose, content, and usage guidance are front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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 simplicity (one required parameter), presence of an output schema, and no nested objects, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, what data it returns, and when to use it.

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 a description for 'slug'. The description adds value by stating 'by its slug' and providing an example ('e.g. 'acme-crm''), going beyond the schema's bare description.

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 'Fetch full detail of a single Tulimoa listing by its slug' and enumerates the specific data fields returned (long description, features, integrations, etc.), differentiating it from sibling tools like search_listings (list) and submit_listing (create).

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 'Use after search_listings when the user wants depth on a specific tool,' providing clear context and a when-to-use scenario, effectively distinguishing from siblings.

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 mentions the output contains ids and labels and the use case, which is sufficient for a read-only list operation. Could explicitly note it is safe/idempotent but not required.

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-loaded with purpose then usage. No superfluous 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?

With no parameters and an output schema provided, the description covers all needed context: why to use it and what it returns.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the output contents and usage 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 tool lists category ids and labels for Tulimoa listings. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools are all listing-related, so no ambiguity.

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 instructs to call first when a valid category value is needed for search_listings. This provides clear when and why to use the tool.

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 full burden. It discloses that results are limited to approved, published listings and supports various filters. However, it does not mention default behavior (e.g., default sort or limit), pagination, or edge cases like empty queries. Some behavioral context is given but not exhaustive.

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 efficient with three concise sentences. It front-loads the purpose, lists available filters, and ends with clear usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 description covers the main purpose, filters, and next steps for a search tool with 7 optional parameters and an output schema. It lacks details on default behavior (covered in schema) but is otherwise complete for guiding an AI agent. Minor omission of explicit mention that all parameters are optional, but schema clarifies.

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 detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, including enums. The description adds context by grouping parameters (e.g., 'topic, category, pricing, MCP support, or EU hosting') but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 finds SaaS tools in the Tulimoa directory by various filters (topic, category, pricing, MCP, EU hosting) and returns approved listings. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_listing by advising to call it for full detail on a result.

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 explicitly states to use this tool for 'find/recommend a tool for X' requests and advises the next step of calling get_listing for details. This provides clear context and differentiation from editing, submitting, or listing 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?

Discloses that the listing starts as 'pending' and requires admin review before appearing publicly. Also states the need for a write-scoped login. With no annotations, this adds valuable behavioral context beyond basic creation.

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 concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, lifecycle status, and prerequisite setup. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Covers creation, pending status, auth requirement, and prerequisite for category. Does not detail error states or rate limits, but with an output schema present, this is adequate for a creation 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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description only reinforces the category parameter with a prerequisite hint. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional semantic detail is 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'create' and resource 'listing' with context of authenticated user. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation and mentions pending status, setting it apart from edit or search tools.

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 to use list_categories first for valid category IDs, which is a concrete usage hint. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison to edit_listing, but the guidance is strong.

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