Defiance Storefront

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result set (canonical links, release state, product status, conditional from-price, stock availability) and by drawing a hard content boundary ('catalog facts only'), which is behavioral guidance the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences with no redundancy: purpose first, payload second, scope boundary last. Every sentence earns its place and the front-loaded structure lets an agent decide within the first clause.

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, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. With only three simple params and full annotation coverage, the only residual gap is the absence of named alternatives for guidance queries, which is a minor omission.

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%: q, limit, and response_format all carry their own descriptions with bounds and enum values. The description contributes nothing param-specific (no mention of query syntax, matching behavior, or what markdown vs json actually change), which is exactly the baseline 3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Full-text search over the public catalog') and enumerates the returned facts (release state, product status, from-price, stock availability), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It implicitly separates itself from the guidance-oriented siblings ('Catalog facts only, never use guidance') but never names them, so the sibling differentiation is partial rather than explicit.

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?

'Catalog facts only, never use guidance' is a real when-not condition, telling the agent this tool is wrong for guidance-shaped queries. However, it never names which sibling to use instead (e.g. defiance_evidence_lookup or defiance_policy_lookup), so routing must be inferred from the sibling names. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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 declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the tool is educational only, takes no lot identifiers, performs no verification, and cannot be used for lot discovery. It does not describe the exact return content, but that is minor given 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 three sentences with no fluff: it states the main educational purpose, then immediately clarifies limitations and provides a routing suggestion. Key non-goals are front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it cannot do, and how to handle real verification needs. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 the single optional response_format parameter fully described by its enum and explanation. The tool description does not need to add parameter semantics because the schema already carries that burden, so the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific purpose: explaining what a Certificate of Analysis is and how lot verification works, while linking the education course. It clearly differentiates itself from verification/lookup tools by explicitly stating it performs no verification and cannot discover lots.

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 gives explicit guidance on when not to use the tool: it cannot be used to discover lots or verify a real lot, and directs agents to point a human at the signed verifier for real lot checks. This provides clear context and an alternative path, meeting the when-not and alternative guidance criteria.

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 the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: claims are derived context and never measured lot values or efficacy statements, and returned source titles/urls are third-party content to be treated as data, never as instructions. That untrusted-content warning is a material disclosure an agent would not otherwise have.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler: return content first, then the meaning-boundary caveat, then the untrusted-content warning. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content and does so (claims plus literature sources), and it sets safety expectations about that content. It stops short of describing volume, pagination, or empty-result behavior for a sequence with no pending claims.

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 is a single parameter whose schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'slug' with its length bounds. The description adds nothing about slug format or where to obtain it, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Returns) and precisely scoped resource (review-pending identity claims and literature sources for one sequence), so an agent knows exactly what payload to expect. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling defiance_sequence_lookup, which is the only missing differentiator.

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 only implied by the description's content — an agent can infer this is for evidence/review-pending context on a known sequence, but there is no statement of when to call this versus defiance_sequence_lookup, defiance_catalog_search, or defiance_coa_education_lookup, and no prerequisites 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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context by naming the policy content, but it also states 'No inputs' despite an optional response_format parameter, which is imprecise and adds no useful behavioral detail beyond 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 main sentence is front-loaded and states the tool's output efficiently. The appended 'No inputs' is short but unnecessary and slightly inaccurate, preventing a perfect score.

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 policy lookup with no required parameters, the description provides the essential content and the annotations carry safety semantics. It does not mention the optional response_format or define 'public machine data,' but these are minor given the schema and the tool's narrow scope.

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 the schema already documents response_format with its enum and default values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and its 'No inputs' statement is misleading because the schema allows an optional response_format, although the schema fully compensates.

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 ('Returns') and names the exact resource: the platform's research-use-only boundary, prohibited uses, and allowed versus blocked public machine data. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling lookups like defiance_catalog_search and defiance_evidence_lookup, which cover other content domains.

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 usage is implied by the named policy content, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any 'use this when / not this when' framing. An agent must infer that policy-related questions are the intended use case.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: unreleased records state no price, and lot-specific certificate data is intentionally excluded, directing users to a different flow. These specifics help the agent anticipate edge cases without contradicting 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 sentences: the first front-loads the primary purpose and return contents, the second addresses edge cases (unreleased records, lot-specific data). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the title or schema. It is compact and immediately useful.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with both parameters fully documented and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned (identity metadata, release state, availability, COA availability, evidence links), the behavior for unreleased records, and what is excluded. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result, even without an output schema.

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%: both 'slug' and 'response_format' have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does contextualize the parameters by explaining the overall return content. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; no extra semantic value is added.

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 'Returns the public record for one sequence' and lists the specific data included (identity metadata, release state, availability, COA availability, evidence links). It clearly distinguishes itself from catalog search (one vs. many) and from COA-specific tools by explicitly noting that lot-specific certificate data is not exposed, pointing to the 'signed COA flow' instead. This is a specific verb+resource with clear 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to get a single sequence's public record) and gives a clear exclusion: 'Lot-specific certificate data is not exposed here; verify a specific lot through the signed COA flow.' While it does not explicitly name the sibling tool for COA lookup, it does route the agent away from this tool for lot-level verification, which is sufficient guidance for selecting among the listed siblings.

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