rainmaker-gateway

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful context beyond them — that the payload is free, public, and hosted on rainmaker-catalog, and that its contents duplicate list-wells — but says nothing about auth requirements, caching, or the URL's stability.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the return value and packages the sibling relationship as a parenthetical, with no wasted 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?

For a trivial zero-parameter helper with no output schema, the description covers what the call yields (a catalog.json URL) and what it duplicates, so an agent has everything needed to decide and 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 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 and resource ('returns the public Rainmaker catalog.json URL'), and explicitly relates it to sibling list-wells by noting it exposes the same data, which lets an agent distinguish the URL helper from the data-listing 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for when you need a shareable/embeddable catalog URL instead of the well data itself, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance naming list-wells as the 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?

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the burden is lowered. The description adds useful domain context (catalog is FREE, fixed ID range, explicit return fields including catalog_url) beyond structured fields. It stops short of stating whether the catalog is static or fetched live, but adds genuine value.

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 sentences, tightly front-loaded with the resource and ID scope, then the returned fields, then the operational next step. No filler.

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 read-only zero-param catalog with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and the follow-up action, which is exactly what an agent needs. Nothing material is 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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly documents that no input is needed and instead describes the output surface, which is the most useful information for a 0-param 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('catalog of Rainmaker wells'), enumerates the exact ID set covered (001–012, 015, 016), and lists the returned fields. This distinguishes it from siblings catalog-url (URL only) and recommend-well (recommendation logic) without opening either schema.

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?

Provides a clear post-condition workflow: 'After picking a well, open {origin}/mcp directly.' However, it does not explain when to use list-wells vs. recommend-well, which is the key sibling choice for an agent with a vague intent.

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/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial unique context: the $0.005 USDC x402 cost, the double-charge avoidance rule for the follow-up call, the returned fields, and the 'nothing is stored' / no-warranty disclaimer. This is behavior beyond what any structured field provides.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the follow-up rule before the disclaimer. The warranty boilerplate ('Provided as is, with no warranty or guarantee of accuracy or fitness') is marginal, but the rest is dense and 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return fields (well id, origin, tool, price_usd, mcp URL, why), states the cost, and describes the required follow-up call. Nothing an agent needs to call and act on this tool is 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 100% with a single fully documented 'need' parameter including examples, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning to the parameter itself 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Keyword-route a natural-language need to the best Rainmaker well' — and names the sibling it is not ('Free alternative: list-wells'). An agent can distinguish this from list-wells and catalog-url without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit follow-up routing ('After recommend, open that origin's /mcp directly — gateway does not proxy') and an alternative with its selection condition ('Free alternative: list-wells'). The when-to-use and post-call workflow are both spelled out.

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