Artvinci's frame calculator

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The word 'estimate' usefully signals a non-binding computed quote rather than a committed price, but the description adds nothing about currency, pricing rules, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (what it estimates, the required inputs) earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the parameters are fully covered by the schema. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on currency or how the frame profile lookup relates to the sibling 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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (estimate) and resource (total price to frame an artwork) with the required inputs (dimensions, frame profile). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling framing_list-frame-profiles, which only enumerates profiles.

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 usage context (needs a frame profile and dimensions to price a job) but never says when to call it versus alternatives or what prerequisites must be met. The link to framing_list-frame-profiles appears only in the schema, not the description.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description contributes the content of the catalogue (mouldings with per-meter rates), which is useful context, but says nothing about whether the list is exhaustive, ordered, or paginated — minor gaps given the annotation covers the safety profile.

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?

A single sentence with the resource and returned rate information front-loaded; nothing is padded. The phrase 'ArtVinci can frame an artwork with' is slightly verbose but earns its place by scoping the domain.

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 zero parameters, an output schema covering the return shape, and readOnlyHint annotations, the definition has everything an agent needs to invoke it. Only the relationship to the sibling estimator is left 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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, unfiltered catalogue retrieval.

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 ('List the frame profiles (mouldings)') and even previews the payload ('per-linear-meter rate'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It never names the sibling framing_estimate-frame-price, so the differentiation from that tool is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative tool framing_estimate-frame-price. An agent must infer on its own that you call this to browse profiles before calling the pricing estimator; nothing in the text says so.

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