Agent Module

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what is returned (version, cohort counts, seat availability), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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, efficient sentence starting with the action verb 'Check'. It lists exactly what the tool examines without any filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a zero-parameter status-checking tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the purpose and the kind of data returned. It is complete for its 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies as no compensation 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 clearly states the tool checks operational status, version, cohort counts, and seat availability. It uses a specific verb ('check') and distinct resources, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on trial keys, waitlists, knowledge, and submissions.

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 implies this is a status-checking tool, and siblings are all action-oriented, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not state 'use this before X' or 'instead of Y', so the usage context is implicit rather than explicit.

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 description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: 24-hour duration, 500-call cap, no payment required, and full layer access. These details provide transparency about the tool's effects and constraints. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with a request action). No delivery mechanism is mentioned, but this is not required for a simple request tool.

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 three concise sentences, each adding unique value: the action, the feature unlock, and the usage constraints. It is front-loaded with the verb and contains no redundant or filler 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 simple 2-parameter schema, full annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, constraints, and scope. It does not explain the return format, but this is not essential for a straightforward request action. The existence of check_status as a sibling tool implies a way to track key status, further completing the 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the input schema (including the vertical enum and default). The description references the 'chosen vertical' but adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. Thus the baseline score of 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 action ('Request a free 24-hour trial key') and specifies the resource and unique features (unlocks all 4 content layers, 500-call cap, no payment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_status and query_knowledge, which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a trial key is needed) by explaining what the key does and its limitations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusionary guidance. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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 provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations state, such as what happens upon registration, whether contact is used for key delivery, or any side effects. The marketing details about pricing and cohort size are not relevant to tool-invocation 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?

The description is short (two sentences), which is concise. However, the second sentence contains irrelevant promotional content ('Inaugural cohort: $19/mo, 900 members, grandfathered for life. AI Compliance included with every membership.') that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. This space could have been used for more operational details.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what happens after registration or what the response will look like. It does not—it only states the action and marketing benefits. This leaves the agent without critical context for a mutation tool, making the description incomplete.

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 every parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters—it doesn't explain how the parameters interact, provide examples, or clarify the vertical list beyond what the schema already does.

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 action: "Register for a paid vertical waitlist." This uses a specific verb and resource, making the primary purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'register_interest' or 'submit_referral', which could also involve registration-like actions.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios. It only describes the basic action without contextualizing when a user should select this tool over its 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are deterministic and validated, the index layer is always free, and content layers require a trial key on the ethics vertical. This adds value without contradicting the annotations.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information: what it does, what it returns, and access/cost details. No unnecessary 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?

For a retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview but lacks detail on the structure of the returned knowledge nodes and the exact meaning of 'content layers' and 'index layer'. The enum of verticals is in the schema, but the description could better bridge the access model and expected results.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description does not need to re-explain them. However, the description's mention of 'index layer' and 'content layers' only loosely relates to the token and vertical parameters, and it does not clarify parameter-specific usage beyond the schema.

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 action ('Retrieve structured knowledge') and resource ('Agent Module verticals'), and mentions the output type ('deterministic, validated knowledge nodes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_status or get_trial_key, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage by describing what can be retrieved and the access conditions (index free, trial key on ethics), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or provide any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the access note.

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 indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the 500-signal threshold for build queue activation and the need for a contact channel for notifications. This gives users a clear sense of downstream effects.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and containing no filler. Each sentence adds necessary information: what the tool does and what the user must include.

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 and a relatively simple tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, activation threshold, and required input (contact channel). Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, it provides a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only emphasis on the contact channel ('Include a contact channel') but doesn't explain parameters beyond what the schema provides. 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 registers demand for an unbuilt vertical, using a specific verb and resource. It also provides a unique trigger threshold (500 signals), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like join_waitlist and submit_pov.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used when a vertical is not yet built ('unbuilt vertical') and provides a concrete activation rule (500 signals). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context 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?

Annotations are all false, offering no safety or side-effect hints. The description adds some behavioral context by noting that including a contact channel enables follow-up about membership activation, but it does not disclose persistence, idempotency, or side effects beyond the submission itself. This is minimal but non-contradictory.

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—two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Every sentence earns its place by conveying purpose and an actionable requirement.

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 submission tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but leaves gaps. It does not clarify that 'contact' is optional despite being phrased as an instruction, nor does it mention other optional fields like modules_accessed or vertical_interest. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 high (88%), so the description does not need to explain individual parameters. It adds minor value by tying 'quality scoring' to confidence_score and 'contact channel' to contact, but it does not introduce new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('Proof of Value assessment'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like check_status or join_waitlist. It also states the context ('after exploring the AI Compliance trial') and key components, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'after exploring the AI Compliance trial.' It implies this is the post-trial submission tool, contrasting with pre-trial siblings like join_waitlist or register_interest. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the strongest guidance.

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 indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds context about reward limits ('4/cycle max, $6 cap') and credit carry-forward, which are behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 four short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the action and then adds reward caps, carry-forward, and compliance status without 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 a well-documented schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and reward policy. It does not describe output/response behavior, but no output schema exists; however, for a simple logging tool, this is 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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter details. It doesn't, but the schema fully documents each parameter. 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 clearly states 'Log a referral signal,' which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_status or submit_pov, which target different actions.

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 implies usage context through reward details and 'Voluntary,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced.

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