Virtual Assistant International

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, yet the description adds real context beyond them: no order exists, nothing is charged until sign-in, terms acceptance and Stripe payment, the agent never sees card details, the returned price is informational only, and the caller cannot set prices or accept terms.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the follow-on sentences each carry distinct behavioral information (no charge yet, no card details, informational price, VA-only). It is on the verbose side, with the read-only point partially duplicating the annotations, but nothing is truly 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (a checkout link and an informational price) and what the flow requires (sign-in, terms acceptance, payment on Stripe). Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents productCode, billingPeriod and countryCode including the enum values and default. The description only echoes the 'one package and one billing period' pairing and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns the checkout page link') and pins the scope to exactly one package and one billing period, which cleanly separates it from get_package and list_packages even without naming them.

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 a clear situation for use ('so the person can finish and pay themselves') and states important exclusions: packages are for virtual assistants, other accounts are blocked at checkout. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use when the caller wants order details or package data.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only and safe to repeat; it changes nothing' merely restates structured data and earns no credit. With zero annotation gap to fill, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what is already machine-readable.

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 content summary is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is the useful part. The second sentence is pure redundancy against the annotations, costing a bit of conciseness but not harming comprehension.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the substantive topics returned (mission, history, training approach), which is enough for a zero-parameter informational tool. No permissions, side effects, or edge cases remain unaddressed.

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 no parameters, so schema description coverage of 100% and the baseline of 4 apply. There is nothing for the description to clarify about 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 a specific resource and enumerates its content (identity, mission, history, training approach), so an agent knows this returns narrative company background rather than FAQ, pricing, or support data. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby get_platform_overview sibling, leaving that distinction to inference.

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 only implied: the content summary suggests 'use this for company background questions', but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_platform_overview or get_faq for adjacent informational needs.

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, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the second sentence ('Read-only and safe to repeat; it changes nothing') largely restates those hints. It adds no behavioral context beyond annotations — no freshness, sourcing, or scope caveats — but for a zero-argument informational read there is little else to disclose, so a mid score is fair.

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 the payload (support contact, hours, company details). The second sentence is redundant against the annotations, which keeps it from a perfect score, but there is no padding or filler.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so adequately by naming the three content areas a caller receives. It is complete for a trivial no-arg informational lookup; only the sibling overlap with get_company_overview is unresolved.

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 for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly implies no input is required.

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 a concrete resource and enumerates what it returns (support contact channels, support hours, company details), so an agent knows what comes back without opening the schema. However, 'the company details' overlaps with the sibling get_company_overview, and the description does nothing to disambiguate that boundary.

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 rather than stated: this is the tool to call when a user asks how to reach support. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_company_overview or get_faq, and no exclusions, so the routing decision against near-neighbour siblings is left to inference.

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, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The sentence 'Read-only and safe to repeat; it changes nothing' merely restates those annotations rather than adding new behavioral context such as scope of content, freshness, or limits on the response size.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the filtering behavior second. The final sentence is redundant with the annotations, costing a point, but overall there is no wasted verbosity.

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 single-parameter, no-required-input FAQ retriever with no output schema, the description is sufficient: an agent knows what it fetches and that the sole argument is optional. Annotations carry the safety profile, so little 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 100% and the description's 'Optionally filter by a topic word' largely duplicates the schema's own description of the topic parameter. With the schema already documenting the sole parameter, the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Answers to common questions') and even enumerates the topical domains covered (courses, studying, jobs, payment, accounts). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like get_contact_and_support or search_site_content that could plausibly serve overlapping informational needs.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this for general FAQ content, and that the topic filter is optional. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing away from the similarly-named informational siblings, so the guidance remains minimal.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description restates 'Read-only and safe to repeat; it changes nothing' without adding new behavioral details such as auth needs or rate limits. It is consistent but redundant.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the sibling reference is placed exactly where it helps.

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 get-by-code tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the operation, hints at the return (live prices and contents), and confirms read-only safety. Annotations and schema together cover the remaining details.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the code source and country default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: retrieve one course package by its code. It also distinguishes itself from list_packages by pointing to that sibling for codes, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly implies you need a package code from list_packages first, giving useful context for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it, but the routing hint is clear.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely restates them ('Read-only and safe to repeat; it changes nothing'). It adds no behavioral context beyond the structured data — no mention of rate limits, freshness/staleness, or what the overview actually contains.

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 the purpose front-loaded, so it is well-sized and readable. The second sentence is largely redundant with the annotations, so it does not fully earn its place, keeping this just below top marks.

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 no-parameter, read-only informational tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient — it names the subject and audience. It falls slightly short by not clarifying its relationship to sibling overview/FAQ tools and not enumerating the topics the overview covers.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the schema is trivial and the description need not document any inputs. Nothing about parameter behavior is misrepresented or missing.

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 subject (the VA International jobs platform) and audience (virtual assistants and employers), clearly conveying that this returns an informational overview. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_company_overview or get_faq, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer you call this to learn how the platform works, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer get_company_overview or get_faq instead, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only and safe to repeat; it changes nothing' largely restates them rather than adding new traits. It does add genuinely new context (prices are denominated in EUR, and the response covers billing periods and inclusions), which is useful since there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences that front-load the payload before the safety note, with no filler. The closing clause 'it changes nothing' is mildly redundant with 'Read-only' and with the annotations, costing it the top mark.

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 output schema, the description usefully sketches the response shape (prices, billing periods, inclusions) and the currency. The one gap is that it says nothing about the country parameter's effect on which price list is returned, which matters for interpreting the prices.

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 100% and the single country parameter is fully documented there (ISO code, default NL), so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the country parameter or that it selects the price list, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — though it does clarify the currency of the returned prices.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('All current course packages') plus a specific payload enumeration (live prices, billing periods, contents), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_package as the single-package alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implied by 'All current'.

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 rather than stated: 'All current course packages' signals this is the bulk-listing call and get_package is the single-item counterpart, but no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tool is named. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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 only declare the coarse profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the confirmation-email handshake, that no record exists until confirmation, that the caller never receives a password/login/token, and that the reply is identical for new and existing addresses.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the write-tool warning leads, then the flow, then the outcome constraints, then the usage restriction. No sentence is filler despite the 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?

For a 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the async confirmation flow and what the caller does and does not receive in the reply. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 100%, so email, firstName, lastName and marketingConsent are already documented. The description reinforces that email must be the person's own and hints at marketing-consent timing, but adds little syntax-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('start an account for a person') and immediately distinguishes itself from the surrounding get_* read tools by flagging 'WRITE TOOL, not read-only'. An agent knows exactly what this does before opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only use this when the person asked you to') and an exclusion ('Accounts are for virtual assistants: other accounts are blocked at checkout'). Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only and safe to repeat; it changes nothing' is largely redundant with structured data and earns little credit. What it does add is return behavior ('best matches with page links'), which matters because there is no output schema, though ranking/ordering and result-limit behavior remain 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the search scope before the safety note. The second sentence is somewhat redundant against the annotations, but the text is not bloated.

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 single-parameter read-only search tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is searched and the rough shape of the result. Minor gaps (result count, ranking, empty-result behavior) are tolerable at this complexity.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting 'Words to look for' plus length bounds. The description adds no syntax, tokenization, or multi-word semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (keyword search) over a named corpus (company, platform, contact and FAQ text) and describes the return (best matches with page links). This clearly separates it from the content-specific siblings like get_faq and get_company_overview, which fetch one section rather than searching across all of them.

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: it searches across the four text corpora, so an agent can infer it is the tool for cross-cutting keyword lookup rather than fetching a single known page. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_faq/get_company_overview or get_contact_and_support, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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