Defiance Storefront

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the nature of the search ('Full-text search') and what it returns, reinforcing safety and non-destructiveness. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise with three short sentences, each adding essential information: what it does, what it returns, and a usage constraint. No redundant 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?

Given the tool has only 3 parameters, full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, scope, return values, and usage limitation. It is complete for a search 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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context about search scope and returns, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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?

The description clearly states it performs full-text search over the public research-use-only catalog, and specifies the returned data: matching sequences with canonical links, from-price, and stock availability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like defiance_sequence_lookup (likely exact match) and defiance_evidence_lookup (different 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 provides usage context: search the catalog for factual data only, not for guidance. It implies when to use (for catalog facts) and when not to use (avoid for guidance). However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings, so a slight deduction.

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 and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context: it does not take lot identifiers, performs no verification, and is purely educational. This prevents agents from misusing it for actual lot checks.

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 sentences: first states what the tool does, second clarifies what it does not do, third provides an alternative action. Every sentence adds value, no waste, front-loaded with key 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?

For a simple, no-param tool with no output schema, the description fully covers its educational role and limitations. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and how not to misuse 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% for the single parameter (response_format). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's enum and default values. 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?

The description clearly states it explains CoA and lot verification, and links an education course. It also explicitly says what it does NOT do (no verification, no lot discovery), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like defiance_evidence_lookup that likely perform actual lookups.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use ('Takes no lot identifiers and performs no verification') and provides an alternative ('Point a human at the signed verifier to check a real lot'). This gives clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that claims are derived context and sources are third-party content that should be treated as data, not instructions. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint).

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the main functionality, and the second adds critical caveats, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately describes the types of data returned (claims and literature sources) and their nature. It could be slightly more complete about the structure or formatting of the response, but it is sufficient for a simple read-only lookup.

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% for the single parameter 'slug'. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides ('The sequence slug.'). 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns review-pending identity/commerce/quality claims and literature sources for one sequence, specifying the exact nature of the data. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on evidence, not catalog, education, policy, or basic sequence lookup.

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 provides clear when-to-use context by explicitly stating what the tool returns and what it does not (never measured lot values or efficacy statements). Although it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the sibling list is available and the negative hints guide usage.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds what specific information is returned but doesn't disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradictory information.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource. Highly concise.

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 simple with no required params and annotations already cover behavioral aspects, the description is largely complete. It could mention the optional response_format parameter to be fully comprehensive, but the schema covers 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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not elaborate on parameters. The description mentions 'No inputs' which is true for required params, but there is an optional response_format. The statement is not harmful but slightly imprecise.

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?

Description clearly states it returns the platform's research-use boundary, prohibited uses, and allowed/blocked data. The verb 'Returns' and the specific resources distinguish it from sibling tools like defiance_catalog_search or defiance_evidence_lookup.

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: to retrieve policy information. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the naming and sibling context make it clear this is for policy lookup. The statement 'No inputs' is slightly misleading as there is an optional parameter.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context about what the record includes and excludes (e.g., no lot values), going beyond 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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, 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?

Given the lack of output schema and simple input, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its limitations (no lot values). Complete for a single-lookup tool with strong annotations.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond the schema, though it explains the output contents which indirectly helps understand the response_format purpose.

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 returns a public research-use-only record for one sequence, listing specific contents (identity metadata, availability, COA summary, evidence links). It distinguishes from siblings by implying it's for a single sequence lookup.

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?

Explicitly states that measured lot values are not exposed and directs to the signed COA flow for lot verification, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and an alternative.

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