MARS Economic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does contribute one meaningful trait: 'Never contacts them automatically' clarifies it is a passive discovery action. However, it does not disclose return behavior, network/data-source behavior, or any limitations, so transparency is partial.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the domain and the second adds a critical boundary. The structure is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what a successful discovery returns, but it does not. It also omits parameter semantics and any success/error behavior, leaving an agent to guess at the result shape for a 2-parameter 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 0%, and the description does not explain 'query' or 'limit' or the loose additionalProperties. The property names are self-explanatory enough to avoid a 1, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 a clear action and object: 'Discover commercial public A2A/MCP services and B2B SaaS commission programs.' This distinguishes the tool's domain from the broad sibling list, though it does not explicitly compare with find_counterparty.

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 guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as find_counterparty or the various commercial_intelligence offers. The second sentence only states a boundary ('Never contacts them automatically'), not a usage context or alternative.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a search/read operation but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, absence of side effects, rate limits, or any other operational traits. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the generic verb 'search'.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks structure or front-loading of critical information; the sentence is so vague that it provides little value, making it closer to a placeholder than a useful definition.

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 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what arguments to pass, what the response will look like, or any constraints, making the tool effectively unusable based solely on this description.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, query, item_type). An agent has no guidance on what these parameters mean, their format, or how they influence the search results, failing entirely to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a verb 'search' and a resource 'reviewed public demand or offers', but 'reviewed' is ambiguous and the resource doesn't clearly map to the tool name 'find_counterparty'. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like discover_commercial_counterparties, making the purpose unclear and only weakly indicative of what the tool actually does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as publish_demand, publish_offer, and discover_commercial_counterparties exist for related operations, but the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or scenarios for choosing this tool.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful negative behavioral boundaries: it does not accept jobs, contact counterparties, execute providers, broadcast transactions, or move money. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's limited role.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information. The negative capabilities list is slightly long but useful. It could be improved by adding brief parameter guidance, but as written it is efficient.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it avoids, which covers the core decision. However, with no output schema and no parameter-level guidance, it omits what the precheck result looks like, how routing recommendations are conveyed, and how to structure inputs. Given seven optional parameters, this is a noticeable gap.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters beyond referring generically to 'a deal.' It does not clarify how title, budget, category, currency, deadline, description, or requiredCapabilities should be filled in, nor does it mention that all parameters are optional.

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 a specific action and resource: a free first-stop routing precheck that evaluates a deal's fit and economics evidence before deciding whether MARS should handle/orchestrate it or route it elsewhere. It clearly distinguishes itself from execution-oriented sibling tools by naming what it does not do.

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 frames this as the 'first-stop' tool to use when sending a deal to MARS, establishing clear timing and context. It also lists activities it does not perform, which helps rule out misuse, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives or describe the exact conditions for choosing a different tool.

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 cover read-only/idempotent/open-world safety; the description adds that exactly one evidence-bearing result is returned, that the source is public supplier/procurement data, and that the response contains a continuation instruction to the paid x402 service. It also explicitly clarifies no payment is taken, which is beyond what the annotations state.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the free/single-result nature and then state the paid continuation; every phrase earns its place. 'No payment is required' reinforces 'FREE' without being wasteful given payment concerns.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers what the agent needs: what is returned (one evidence-bearing result), how it connects to the paid service (continuation), and cost (none). It is slightly vague about the format of the 'exact continuation' and does not describe output structure, but the annotations and schema cover the rest.

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 single parameter q is fully documented in the schema ('Commercial need, product, service, supplier category, or procurement topic'), so the description adds little beyond that. The description's mention of 'supplier/procurement discovery' loosely reinforces q's purpose but introduces no new 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 a concrete action ('return one evidence-bearing public supplier/procurement discovery result'), specifies the exact scope (single result, public, supplier/procurement), and contrasts with the paid x402 service. An agent can distinguish this free preview tool from the paid offer siblings.

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 makes the free/paid relationship clear ('FREE,' 'No payment required,' 'exact continuation to the 0.05 USDC... service'), implying it is the entry point before the paid service. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings such as mars_x402_commercial_intelligence_offer or find_counterparty, nor gives exclusions.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it returns exactly 3 evidence-ranked results and a compact decision summary, and it serves as a pre-commitment proof. It does not introduce any contradiction with 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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately gives the output shape and the usage context. Every sentence 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?

The description captures purpose and output shape, but it omits the meaning of both parameters and provides no usage details beyond the general 'before full product' framing. For a tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call.

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 0%, and the description does not mention 'q' or 'journeyId' at all. With zero parameter documentation in either the schema or description, an agent has no way to know what values to supply, making this a critical gap.

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 ('Inspect'), identifies the exact resource ('0.01 USDC Base Mainnet x402 proof offer'), and states the concrete outcome ('3 evidence-ranked results plus a compact decision summary'). It also distinguishes itself from the '0.05 USDC full product', which is enough to separate it from the related x402 offer sibling.

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 frames when to use this tool: as a low-cost proof step 'before you commit to the 0.05 USDC full product'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when the free preview would be more appropriate.

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 meaningful privacy behavior beyond the annotations by stating that free text, IP, User-Agent, referrer, and raw journey id are not stored. This is valuable because the annotations are all false and provide no safety profile. However, it does not disclose what side effects occur, whether the reason code itself is persisted, or any idempotency/retention details, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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 and is very compact. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a useful privacy clause. The word 'FREE' is slightly ambiguous and 'optional' could be misinterpreted as relating to parameters rather than the feedback action, but overall there is no meaningful 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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, the description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation. It does not explain what the tool returns, what the feedback call triggers, when in the purchase flow it should be used, or how the optional parameters relate to the feedback context. The privacy note is helpful but not sufficient for a tool with this many schema 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds some meaning by clarifying that feedback is reason-coded and free text is not allowed, and that raw journey id is not stored. However, it does not explain stage, product, retryIntent, paymentCapability, or expectedMaxPriceMicros, leaving most input semantics to the agent's inference from names and enums.

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 identifies this as anonymous purchase feedback using a reason code, and the title reinforces that purpose. It lacks an explicit verb like 'submits' or 'records', but an agent can infer the intended action. It is distinguishable from the offer and attribution sibling tools, though it does not name them.

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 says the feedback is 'optional' and 'FREE', which hints at when it might be appropriate, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. None of the sibling tools are referenced, and there is no stated condition or exclusion, so the agent is left to infer usage context.

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 aligns with the readOnlyHint and goes beyond annotations by specifying that no payment is required, the exact data returned, and the follow-up action to purchase. It adds concrete behavioral context (returns specific fields, triggers a purchase only if the agent chooses to call the endpoint) without contradicting any 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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence gives a clear call-to-action for purchase. Every word contributes meaning.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the next step to buy. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it and what to expect from the response.

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 semantics are trivially satisfied. The description conveys the fixed nature of the offer (endpoint, price, network) without needing parameter documentation, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 'Inspect' with a specific resource 'exact paid-service offer' and enumerates the exact return fields (endpoint, price, network, asset, receiver). It clearly distinguishes this inspection tool from a purchasing action and provides enough specificity that an agent can understand what it does without opening schemas.

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 as a pre-purchase inspection step by saying 'without paying' and then directing the agent to call the returned endpoint to buy. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mars_free_commercial_intelligence_preview or mars_micro_commercial_intelligence_offer, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Guidance is implied 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavior: the tool does not send the proposal. However, 'prepare' is vague and unqualified, with no mention of side effects, persistence, required context, permissions, or output.

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 and front-loads the core action. It is concise, though it sacrifices detail that the other dimensions need.

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 5 parameters, no required fields, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, a one-line description is materially insufficient for correct invocation. The agent lacks information about parameter formats, required inputs, return values, and constraints.

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 0% for all 5 parameters, and the description adds no explanation of endpoint, prospect_id, prospect_name, value_proposition, or commission_request. With additionalProperties allowing arbitrary properties, the agent receives virtually no semantic guidance for parameters.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Prepare ... partner onboarding proposal') and explicitly says the proposal is not sent. This helps distinguish it from a sending/submitting tool, though it doesn't explain what 'prepare' actually produces or persists.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like submit_partner_application. The phrase 'do not send' implies a pre-submission step, but no conditions, alternatives, or workflow context are given.

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, but it is extremely thin. The line 'MARS remains intermediary only' gestures at MARS's neutral role, but its operational meaning is vague. Nothing is said about what 'review' involves, whether the submission is editable or retractable, what side effects occur, or what conditions must hold before submitting.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence. However, the second sentence, 'MARS remains intermediary only,' spends its words on a cryptic phrase that adds little actionable value. Brevity here comes at the cost of necessary detail, making it under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with a nested object, no required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage — yet the description provides only two short sentences. An agent has no way to know what data to populate, what the review flow is, what the response will contain, or how this relates to the precheck and offer tools. The definition is a bare stub relative to the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds zero parameter-level information. The five parameters (subject, currency, owner_agent, requirement, jurisdiction) are entirely unexplained, including the nested 'requirement' object, which is likely the payload's core. The description 'Submit B2B demand' only weakly implies what subject/requirement might hold; the burden falls entirely on the agent to guess formats and 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Submit B2B demand for review'), clearly identifying the operation's subject. The word 'demand' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like publish_offer, though it never names that sibling directly. The cryptic phrase 'MARS remains intermediary only' adds some ambiguity and keeps this from a 5.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the 14 siblings such as publish_offer, request_quote, or mars_deal_route_precheck. Usage is only implied (submit when you have B2B demand to review), with no conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria. For a tool in a crowded ecosystem, this is a significant gap.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate that submission enters a review workflow, but it does not state side effects, permissions, visibility, reversibility, or what happens after review. This is minimal transparency for a write/submission operation.

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, and the core action and object are front-loaded. It is efficient, though quite terse relative to the tool's complexity and lack of schema descriptions.

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 five undocumented parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It does not explain required fields, workflow behavior, or expected response. A caller cannot confidently invoke publish_offer from this definition alone.

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 0%, and none of the five parameters (subject, currency, capability, owner_agent, jurisdiction) are explained. The phrase 'offer/capability' only gestures at the domain and adds no concrete meaning to the input schema. The presence of additionalProperties: true further increases ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('Submit'), a resource ('supplier offer/capability'), and a purpose ('for review'). This clearly conveys what the tool does and loosely differentiates it from sibling tools like publish_demand. However, it does not name alternatives or clarify what 'offer/capability' encompasses.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as publish_demand, request_quote, or submit_partner_application. No conditional language, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It signals that the tool records an introduction tied to a mandate, but does not disclose whether it validates the mandate's status, what side effects occur, idempotency, permissions, or failure behavior. The verb 'Record' implies a write operation, but little else is revealed.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the primary subject front-loaded. It is easy to read quickly, though its brevity leaves out important context that could have been included without much extra length.

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 four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It leaves referral_code unexplained, does not clarify behavior when the mandate is not active or verified, and provides no indication of return values or error handling. The core purpose is stated, but the tool contract is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining all four parameters. It loosely maps 'Buyer' to buyer_id, 'Supplier' to supplier_id, and 'mandate' to mandate_id, but it never addresses referral_code or clarifies how the parameters relate to each other. This is minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 action ('Record') on a clearly defined event type ('Buyer-Supplier introduction') with an explicit condition ('under an active verified mandate'). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like record_commission_event by the event described, though it does not name or differentiate a sibling 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?

The only usage guidance is the phrase 'under an active verified mandate,' which implies a prerequisite but provides no direction on when to use this tool versus record_commission_event or submit_commission_mandate. There is no explicit statement about when not to use it or which alternative applies to related workflows.

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, the description must disclose behavior, and it does state that the tool does not move money and that it verifies before updating the ledger. However, it does not explain failure handling, idempotency, or what 'update the ledger' entails, and 'without moving money' already appears in the schema's policy. It provides useful but limited behavioral context.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the verification action and appends the critical no-money-movement constraint. Every phrase adds information, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

The tool involves cryptographic verification and a ledger update, yet the description omits preconditions, error behavior, and any sense of how it fits with siblings like 'submit_commission_mandate' or 'record_attribution.' There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone leaves significant gaps for an agent to call 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 coverage is only 25%, with only signed_payload having a description; the description does not mention signature_algorithm, signature_base64url, or signer_public_jwk. The phrase 'principal-signed contract/payment evidence' alludes to signed_payload but does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation. The agent is left to infer cryptographic input requirements from names and schema constraints.

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 verifies 'principal-signed contract/payment evidence' and updates the 'commission evidence ledger.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and the phrase 'without moving money' helps differentiate it from payment-related siblings. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description only implies that the tool is appropriate when principal-signed evidence needs verification and ledger updates. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the context from the verb 'Verify.'

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, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the RFQ is quarantined and no automatic contact will occur. However, it does not explain what quarantine means operationally, what side effects exist, or whether the RFQ can later be released.

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 tight phrase with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning ('quarantined', 'without automatic contact'). It is very concise, though it may be too terse for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is far too incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters (one a nested object), no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. It does not explain required concepts, parameter usage, return values, or the quarantine lifecycle.

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 0% and the description provides zero information about offer_id, demand_id, requirements, or requester_agent. An agent has no help understanding what values are expected or how the parameters relate to the RFQ creation.

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 names a specific action ('Create') on a specific resource ('RFQ') and adds two meaningful qualifiers ('quarantined', 'without automatic contact') that set it apart from a generic request_quote tool. It does not fully define 'quarantined', and the qualifiers are not enough to differentiate it from every sibling without deeper inspection.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as publish_demand or find_counterparty. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where this tool should be avoided.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Verify and record' does disclose a two-step behavior: cryptographic verification and persistence. However, it does not mention what happens on verification failure, whether recording is idempotent, any authorization requirements, or the response/return 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core action and object, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

This is a cryptographic verification tool with four required parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations. The one-line description does not address verification-failure behavior, side effects of recording, return values, or schema-encoded policy constraints, leaving important operational context missing.

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 25%, so the description must compensate, but it adds little per-parameter meaning. The 'principal-signed ECDSA P-256' phrasing roughly maps to signer_public_jwk and signature_algorithm, yet those are already suggested by the schema enum and signed_payload description. It does not explain signature_base64url or the full required signed_payload structure.

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 identifies a specific action ('Verify and record') and a specific resource ('principal-signed ECDSA P-256 commission mandate'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling recording tools by emphasizing the signed mandate. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource and cryptographic context are precise enough to avoid confusion.

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 tool is used when a principal-signed ECDSA P-256 mandate needs to be verified and recorded, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference any alternative tools. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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 does indicate that the application goes through identity and terms review, which implies a review workflow, but it does not disclose outcomes, required approvals, side effects, or what the caller should expect after submission.

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. It conveys the core action and purpose economically, which is ideal for quick agent scanning.

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 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely underspecified. An agent cannot reliably know which parameters are required, what format they should take, or what happens after submission.

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 0% and the description adds no concrete meaning to any of the 10 parameters. It does not explain which fields are needed, how the const values relate to the referral-only model, or what values are expected for string parameters like contact_uri or commission_model.

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 identifies the action ('Submit'), the resource ('supplier/referral partnership application'), and the purpose ('for identity and terms review'). It is specific enough to differentiate this from commission-mandate or offer-publishing siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as submit_commission_mandate or prepare_onboarding_proposal. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen or what prerequisites apply.

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