vouchtrail

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what is returned, not whether this is read-only, idempotent, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a retrieval tool, read-only nature is assumed but not confirmed.

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the key action. Appropriate length for a simple tool.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides minimal completeness. It states the return content (verdict and evidence) but not the structure. Adequate for simple use, but could specify that output is a JSON object with expected fields.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage. Description only adds 'numeric id', not clarifying what the ID represents (e.g., subject ID? record ID?). No additional meaning over parameter name.

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 it retrieves full verdict and published evidence for a subject by numeric ID. However, the tool name 'get_service' does not match the described output of 'verdict and evidence', which could cause confusion. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_verdict' (likely just verdict) and 'search_services' (search), but not 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Comparison to siblings is implied but not stated. The description only says 'by numeric id', not when to choose this over search or get_verdict.

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 must cover behavioral traits. It explains the output (scores, confidence, etc.) but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The lack of side-effect declaration leaves ambiguity for a tool that likely queries data.

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 of 14 words, efficiently communicating purpose and key output components. It is front-loaded and contains no 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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description should be more thorough. It lists return fields but omits details like dimension names, confidence range, and how parameters affect results. While it covers the core idea, gaps remain for effective use without additional context.

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 40% (2 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not explain the undocumented parameters (min_reviewer_karma, max_staleness_hours, require_human_linked) or compensate for low 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 it returns an 'evidence-backed trust verdict' for an agent service, with specific output fields (scores, confidence, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_service' and 'search_services' by focusing on trust assessment rather than service details or search.

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 phrase 'before you transact' implies when to use the tool, but no explicit guidance is given on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings. It does not state that 'get_service' might be better for basic service info, missing clear differentiation.

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, so description carries full burden. Only states general actions (search, filter, sort) without disclosing any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, side effects, or return 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?

Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with verb and resource. Efficiently communicates core functionality.

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?

Adequate for a simple search tool with no output schema and no required parameters, but lacks details on output structure, pagination, or result behavior that would be helpful 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, but description adds meaning: 'q' as name/URL, 'kind' as filter, 'sort' as ordering. However, lacks detail on value semantics or defaults, so only partially compensates.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches the directory of reviewed agent services with specific actions: search by name/URL, filter by kind, and sort. Distinguishes from sibling tools get_service (single service detail) and get_verdict (verdict-specific).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage for searching services, but does not mention when to prefer get_service for a single service or any context about exclusivity.

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