docks Produktberatung

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the outcome vocabulary (met/unmet/unknown) and the no-side-effect claim about leads, which is mildly additive, but it omits any auth or scope constraints.

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 short sentences, outcome first, exclusion last, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing a distinct fact.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values, and its safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is parameter guidance for two required inputs at 0% schema coverage, which leaves the agent guessing about offeringId and requirement shape.

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 neither required parameter is explained: offeringId (enum-constrained to 'docks') and the requirements array (key/expected/required, max 30) are invisible from the description. 'Check buyer requirements against evidence' only loosely gestures at the requirements parameter and says nothing about what offeringId selects.

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 (check/assess) and resource (buyer requirements against evidence), plus the three possible outcomes. 'Does not create a lead' separates it from the write-oriented siblings prepare_inquiry and submit_inquiry, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

'Does not create a lead' implies this is the pre-inquiry assessment step rather than the lead-creation step, which is a useful when-not signal. However, it never says when to reach for this versus prepare_inquiry or get_inquiry_status, so routing is left to inference.

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real context on top: the read is scoped to one inquiry, requires a private access capability, and silently omits pending handovers. It does not explain failure behavior for a missing/invalid token, but the added behavioral caveats are substantive.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope and caveat are stated before any elaboration. The phrasing is terse to the point of being slightly opaque, but nothing is wasted.

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 not be described, and the safety profile is in annotations. However, key operational facts are missing for a token-gated read: what a "pending handover" is, what happens with an expired or malformed token, and whether the response differs in those cases.

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 two required parameters. The description only obliquely gestures at "accessToken" via "private access capability"; it says nothing about the token's format, lifetime, or scope, nor about the inquiry id. With no schema descriptions to lean on, this leaves an agent to infer both 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 and resource ("Read ... this inquiry") and adds a scope boundary ("Cannot read other inquires") that separates it from the search/submit siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, and it never reconciles the name's promise of "status" with the broader claim of reading the inquiry.

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?

It implies the usage context (single inquiry, access via a private capability token) and gives one caveat about when data will not come back ("A pending handover is not delivered"). It names no alternative tool and gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as search_offerings or submit_inquiry.

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, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by characterizing the data as 'sourced' and by warning that unknowns and prices are not guaranteed, which is a real disclosure about data completeness. It stops short of describing auth requirements, scope, or response 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the read action before the caveat. Each sentence carries information, though 'sourced docks capabilities, limits and links' is slightly compressed and reads awkwardly.

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, and the single enum parameter keeps complexity low. Still, the instruction to 'clarify' unknowns never says through which sibling that clarification happens, leaving an operational gap for the agent.

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 one parameter, offeringId, with 0% schema description coverage, but it is fully constrained by a single-value enum ('docks'). The description's mention of 'docks capabilities' loosely explains what that value yields, yet it never names the parameter or states that the value is fixed. With such a constrained enum the gap is small, so a 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 verb 'Read' plus the resource ('docks capabilities, limits and links') gives a recognizable purpose, but it never reconciles with the tool's own name, get_product_information, nor distinguishes it from the sibling search_offerings. An agent can guess it fetches details for the 'docks' offering, but only because the enum happens to match the word 'docks' in the description.

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 second sentence is a directive rather than routing: unknown integrations and prices must be clarified and guarantees must not be inferred, which implies this tool is the authoritative source and that other paths exist for unknowns. However, no alternative sibling (e.g. prepare_inquiry for clarification) is named, so the usage context is only implied.

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 only declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds the substantive behavior: a draft (not a live inquiry), a returned reviewUrl for user-side submission, an accessToken that must be kept private, and the fact that drafts are not handed to sales. Those non-obvious privacy and lifecycle constraints are exactly what 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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and gating condition, then the return value and the prohibitions. No filler; every sentence adds a constraint or a behavioral fact an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, the reviewUrl/accessToken return is well covered and the safety flow is described. However, for an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and two nested object parameters, the total absence of parameter-level guidance leaves the invocation under-specified.

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% across 8 parameters, including nested 'details' and 'requirements' objects, so the description carries the full documentation burden. It only hints at the offeringId enum via the word 'docks' and says nothing about useCase, company, contactName, email, required vs optional fields, or the requirements 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prepare a private inquiry draft') plus the gating condition ('only when the buyer wants to contact docks'). The line about returning a reviewUrl for 'explicit submission' implicitly separates it from the sibling submit_inquiry, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives a clear when-condition ('only when the buyer wants to contact docks') and an explicit when-not ('Do not open or approve it on their behalf'), which implies submit_inquiry is the follow-on. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or describing the full prepare→review→submit handoff, so it is strong but not fully 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?

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing data provenance ('vendor information from docks only, not an independent market comparison') and a side-effect guarantee ('no lead is created'). This is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotation block.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most important caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information; 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The provenance and no-lead notes round it out, but the total silence on what the 'query' argument should contain leaves a real gap for invocation.

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 says nothing about the single required 'query' parameter — no hint about expected content, phrasing, or length (2-500 chars). With one undocumented param, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (offers of docks), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like get_product_information or submit_inquiry, so it falls short of 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 lead is created' implicitly contrasts with prepare_inquiry/submit_inquiry, hinting that this is a non-committal search step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any routing to a named 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the 'repeated calls cannot create duplicate leads' sentence largely restates idempotentHint. The description does add genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations: a precondition (buyer approval of the review page) and a rejection rule for unconfirmed drafts. It still leaves the read-vs-write ambiguity unresolved.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the gating condition; nothing is padded. Minor loss because the idempotency sentence partially duplicates the annotation.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the precondition and rejection path. It is still thin for a 3-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage: parameter meaning and auth/accessToken expectations are absent.

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 names none of the three required parameters (id, revision, accessToken). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it adds no meaning about what 'revision' controls or why an accessToken is required.

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 leading verb/resource pair 'Retrieve the submission receipt' is specific, but it sits awkwardly against the tool name 'submit_inquiry', leaving the agent unsure whether this reads or writes. No sibling tool (get_inquiry_status, prepare_inquiry) is named to disambiguate the flow position.

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?

A use condition is implied ('after the buyer has approved the review page') and a failure condition is stated ('an unconfirmed draft is rejected'), which is more than most tools offer. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance relative to prepare_inquiry or get_inquiry_status.

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