Artvinci's frame calculator

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds that this is an estimate rather than an order or commitment, which is useful, but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as rounding, currency, or excluded costs.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It states the action, object, and key inputs efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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, read-only pricing tool, the description combined with a 100%-covered input schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and existing output schema is largely sufficient. The only minor omission is explicit handling of edge cases like currency or price boundaries, which are not essential to invoke the tool correctly.

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 each parameter already has a meaningful description, including frameProfileId's source from framing.list-frame-profiles. The description rephrases the inputs without adding new constraints, units, or format details, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('total price to frame an artwork'), with clear inputs (dimensions, chosen frame profile). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling list-frame-profiles tool, which lists profiles rather than pricing.

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 the use case—estimating cost given dimensions and a profile—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention the workflow with framing.list-frame-profiles. Usage is clear by inference, not by direct 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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful output context (profiles and per-linear-meter rates), but does not disclose anything beyond that, such as ordering or edge cases. This is acceptable for a simple list operation, but the description itself does not significantly expand on the annotation.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action verb, adds a parenthetical disambiguation, and communicates the key output content efficiently.

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, read-only list tool with an output schema present and only one sibling, the description is complete enough. An agent knows exactly what the tool returns and can invoke it without missing critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. Schema coverage is 100% and the description introduces no conflicting input expectations, making the baseline 4 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('frame profiles (mouldings)') with a useful scope qualifier ('ArtVinci can frame an artwork with'). The added detail about per-linear-meter rates further distinguishes this from the sibling pricing 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?

The description implies its use case—enumerating available mouldings and their rates—but does not explicitly state when to choose it over framing_estimate-frame-price. There is no clear exclusion or alternative guidance, leaving the relationship to inference.

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