door_a9015a46f924

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, return values, or the specific nature of the information provided. With no annotations to fill the gap, the description fails to clarify what actually happens when the tool is invoked.

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 but not concise—it is vague and lacks a clear structure. It could be more direct and informative, but it does not waste words; however, it fails to convey essential information in a well-organized manner.

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 absence of an output schema and parameters, the description bears the full burden of explaining what the tool does and returns. It falls short by only vaguely describing the platform and agent actions, leaving an agent without enough context to use it 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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so there is nothing to explain. As per the baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to cover parameter semantics.

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 the tool provides information about the platform and what visiting agents may do, but it lacks a specific action or clear outcome. It is not a tautology, yet it is too vague to differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'ask' or 'confirm'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, conditions, or exclusions that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key trait that answers are grounded in platform knowledge and include citations, which is valuable. However, it does not mention any limitations, error handling, or the fact that this is a read-only operation (though implied). The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise two-clause sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Ask about this platform') and then adds the grounding/citation detail. There is no wasted wording, and every part carries meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple Q&A 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what topics are valid and that answers include citations. It does not explain the return format in detail, but for a Q&A tool this is acceptable. It could have mentioned that questions should stay within the platform's knowledge base, but that is implied. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a tool of 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by restricting the question to platform capabilities, pricing, and policies, and by implying that questions should be answerable from the platform's own knowledge. This goes beyond the generic schema description and helps the agent frame the question appropriately.

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 a specific verb ('ask'), a resource ('this platform'), and scopes the topics to capabilities, pricing, and policies. It also distinguishes itself by noting answers are grounded in the platform's own knowledge with cited sources, which differentiates it from generic Q&A tools. Even without naming siblings, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 for questions about the platform but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which siblings to prefer. It does not mention alternatives like 'about' or 'quote', leaving the agent to infer routing based on context. This is a significant gap given the presence of sibling tools.

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 carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency (duplicate confirm returns original receipt), polling semantics (never consumes the quote), and the payment credential constraints (never a card number, amount is pinned). It does not explicitly state whether the action is destructive or requires special permissions, but the idempotency and payment details are strong behavioral disclosures.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the core action and idempotency, then covers polling and payment nuances in a few sentences. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, nested objects, payment flows, polling), the description covers the key behaviors: idempotency, polling, payment credential rules, and keyed quotes. It does not describe the return format (no output schema), but the description mentions 'receipt' and 'awaiting_human/awaiting_payment' statuses, which gives a reasonable picture. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or what happens if the quote is expired.

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 all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the payment_credential vs payment alias relationship, the keyed quote requirement, and the wait_seconds behavior. It clarifies the payment_link exception, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 executes a quoted action exactly once, and distinguishes it from quote (which creates the quote) and from polling behavior. It names the specific resource (a quote) and the action (confirm/execute), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: to execute a quoted action, to poll a quote awaiting human approval (with wait_seconds), and when not to use it (never for a second execution, never with a payment credential for payment_link quotes). It also clarifies the distinction from quote and the behavior for keyed quotes.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: no key is needed in advance, and quoting a keyed action without one returns connect instructions. This is beyond the basic 'list' behavior and gives the agent useful expectations about outcomes.

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 that is informative and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose ('List the actions...') and then adds the key behavioral note. No wasted words, though it could be more explicit about usage context.

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 tool is a simple discovery tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it lists and a key behavioral nuance. It's complete enough for an agent to decide to call it and know what to expect. The only gap is lack of explicit routing to siblings, but that's not critical for a discovery 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, but it does explain what the returned list contains (name, description, parameters, key requirement), which adds value about the output. Since there are no params, baseline 4 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 it lists registered actions with specific attributes (name, description, parameters, key requirement). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'about' or 'ask', but the verb and resource are clear enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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 in a discovery context — an agent would call this to learn about available actions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like 'about' or 'quote', nor does it mention any alternatives. The guidance is implicit but not strongly framed.

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it does not execute anything, returns a quote_id that is needed for confirmation, and quotes expire. With no annotations provided, this description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It covers the essential side effects (or lack thereof) and the time-based limitation. It does not mention potential errors or edge cases, but the critical behaviors are stated.

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-loads the purpose. Each sentence adds important information: what it does, what it returns, and its safety/expiry. No fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy 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?

Given the sibling tools (about, ask, confirm, list_actions) and the absence of an output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, what it returns (a quote_id), and how to use it in conjunction with 'confirm'. It also clearly states that nothing executes until confirmation, preventing misuse. There is no missing information that would hinder correct usage.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (coverage 100%). The tool description adds meaning by explaining how 'tool' and 'args' are used together – 'pins the exact tool + args' – which clarifies their relationship in the quote. It also reinforces that agent_key is optional and will be automatically minted if needed. This is a moderate addition beyond the schema, so a score of 4 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 that the tool 'Get a quote for one action call' – it specifies the verb (get), the resource (a quote), and the scope (one action call). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'confirm' (which presumably executes after a quote) and 'ask' (which might be for questions). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 this tool: before 'confirm', since it returns a quote_id for confirmation and explicitly notes 'Nothing executes until confirm'. It also mentions the expiry (10 minutes) which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X', but the context of siblings makes it clear enough. Slight deduction for not explicitly contrasting with alternatives.

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