ibo

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains idempotency via client_request_id, mentions fixed server-side prices, and states return values (checkout_url, stripe_session_id, amount_due). No contradiction with 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?

Description is concise with 4 sentences, front-loading purpose and then usage guidance. Could be slightly more structured but wastes no 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's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it, behavioral notes, and return values. It is complete for agent decision-making.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces client_request_id's idempotency role but does not add new information beyond the schema. 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 creates a Stripe Checkout for a 50% deposit on a package, with specific verb 'Create' and resource 'Stripe Checkout for deposit'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_upload_url and submit_brief, which are unrelated.

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 specifies that the agent should never complete payment and that the checkout_url should be opened by the user for approval. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare directly to alternatives, though the context is clear.

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 are present (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), but the description adds valuable context: the URL is short-lived, storage is bound to the order server-side, and explicit file type/size constraints. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (two sentences) with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information without 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?

Given the annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, steps, constraints (file types, size limits), and subsequent usage (submit_brief). It is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the flow: filename is referenced in submit_brief, order_token comes from get_order, and size is in bytes. It compensates for the missing filename description.

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's purpose: 'Get a short-lived presigned URL to upload one brand-asset file to IBO's private storage.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('presigned URL'), and scope ('one brand-asset file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_checkout or get_order.

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 explains prerequisites: 'Requires order_token from get_order' and steps: 'PUT the raw file bytes to url, then reference key in submit_brief files[].' It also lists allowed file types and size limits. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and actionable.

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 and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: the tool returns a token and is the exclusive source for payment status. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful additional meaning about the tool's 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 three sentences, each adding value. The main purpose is stated first, followed by key return values and usage, then a critical note. No extraneous content.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's context: it explains what it returns, how the token is used with siblings, and its unique role in verifying payment. No gaps for a tool of this 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 is 100% complete for the single parameter (session_id). The tool description does not add any new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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's purpose: 'Verify payment after checkout and receive an order-scoped access token.' It uses specific verbs and resources (verify payment, receive token) and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_checkout and submit_brief by focusing on post-checkout verification.

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 this is the only way to establish payment status ('Payment status can only be established here, never assumed') and indicates the order_token's use with specific sibling tools (create_upload_url, submit_brief). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to alternatives.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what is listed (stable ids, prices, deposits, deliverables, review rounds, refund/fit policy) and positions it as the initial call. No contradictions.

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, focused sentence that front-loads key information (IBO's production packages) and ends with a clear usage directive. Every word serves a purpose with no 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema (not shown), and clear annotations, the description adequately covers all necessary aspects. It tells the agent what the tool returns and when to use it, making it fully complete for this simple 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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage. With no parameters to document, the description naturally omits parameter details. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what the tool returns.

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 'IBO's production packages' and lists key contents like stable ids, prices, deposits, deliverables, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., create_checkout, submit_brief) by being a listing operation, and explicitly says 'Call this first' which implies its role as the starting point.

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 includes the explicit directive 'Call this first,' which tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context of listing packages versus creating/submitting makes the usage clear.

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 indicate readOnlyHint false, etc. The description adds that customer identity comes from verified payment, rejects unpaid/anonymous submissions, and does not accept session ids. These details go beyond annotations and clarify behavioral 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?

The description is two sentences plus a note, well-structured with the main action first and important constraints highlighted. It is concise without unnecessary 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 high parameter count (13) and low schema coverage, the description adequately explains the core workflow (paid order, fields, file upload) and distinguishes from siblings. However, it lacks details on optional parameters (name, email, etc.) and expected formats, making it somewhat 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 coverage is only 8% (only order_token described). The description adds meaning by listing some project fields (product, goal, audience, etc.) and noting sources for order_token and files. However, many parameters (name, email, company, package) are not explained, leaving gaps.

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 specifies the verb 'submit' and the resource 'creative brief', clearly stating it is for PAID orders and distinguishing from submit_custom_inquiry. It lists the key fields and sources, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool (for paid orders with payment completed) and when not to (unpaid/anonymous submissions), directing users to submit_custom_inquiry. It also instructs to get order_token from get_order and files from create_upload_url, providing clear 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 fully discloses the workflow: submission triggers a confirmation email (double opt-in), only confirmed inquiries reach the studio, and IBO replies within one business day. Annotations are sparse (no destructiveHint, readOnlyHint false), so the description carries the full burden and meets it comprehensively.

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 front-loaded with purpose and includes critical notes in a clear order. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. A minor improvement would be to break into bullet points for 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?

The description explains the process end-to-end, including user action (check email) and timing. An output schema exists (not provided here) but the description doesn't mention return values. Given the complexity (11 params, multi-step process), it is nearly complete but could note error handling or expected 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?

Schema description coverage is only 18%. The description adds meaning for goal ('real detail, 30+ chars, placeholders rejected') and email ('real email for confirmation'). For the remaining 8 parameters (links, notes, etc.), no additional semantics are provided, leaving them underspecified.

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 submits a custom production inquiry without payment, using a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('Custom Production inquiry'). It differentiates from siblings like create_checkout (payment) and submit_brief (likely a brief, not a scope 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: interview user for real project details first, reject placeholders, and inform user about the double opt-in email. It implies when to use (after gathering details) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to siblings.

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