serpmantics

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

Without annotations, the description covers key behaviors: asynchronicity, polling via GET endpoint, and token usage. It does not mention error handling or input limits, but the revealed traits are valuable.

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 few sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds value, though the note about tokens is minor. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-structured.

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 async nature and polling, but does not describe the output shape or error scenarios. Without an output schema, this is a gap. It is adequate for a tool that expects results from another endpoint.

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 is 3. The description adds clarity by specifying that html_content should be without <mark> tags, which is beyond the schema 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 starts an E-E-A-T analysis on guide content, specifying the action and resource. It is distinct from siblings like create_eeat_competitors, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 usage for initiating an async analysis, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions polling and token costs, but does not discuss alternatives or prerequisites.

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?

With no annotations, the description discloses asynchronous behavior, polling instructions, token costs per competitor, and the source of competitor count. It does not cover error cases, but for a creation tool, this is thorough.

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 well-structured with separate paragraphs for core purpose and token costs. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in the token cost example.

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?

Covers the asynchronous nature, polling endpoint, token costs, and source of competitors. Lacks output format or error responses, but given the reference to a polling endpoint and absence of output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 only parameter 'guideId' is described in the schema. The description adds context about the guide's SERP but does not add new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool starts an E-E-A-T analysis on a guide's top SERP competitors, using specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'create_eeat' and 'get_eeat_competitors'.

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 context for use: asynchronous analysis requiring polling via GET /api/v1/eeat-competitors, and token cost details. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison to siblings, but the polling mechanism is clearly explained.

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?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: each guide targets exactly one engine and one analysis mode, credit costs (1 for Google, 4 for AI engines), and the distinction between answer and citations modes. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or error handling, but covers the essential behavioral traits for use.

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 well-structured with clear sections and examples. It front-loads the purpose and provides a numbered list for guide types. While informative, it is slightly verbose and could be more concise without losing 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (multiple modes, credit costs, and no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all guide types, credit costs, recommendations, and how to optimize for multiple engines. It adequately addresses the context for an AI 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?

The schema has 100% coverage of parameters, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema, especially for the `source` parameter with detailed examples, default behavior, and credit costs. The `queries` and `lang` parameters are also explained, though `lang` could benefit from more context about supported codes.

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 new guides, specifies the resource (guides), and distinguishes between Google SERP, LLM ANSWER, and LLM CITATIONS guide types. It provides a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('guides'), and differentiates from sibling tools like delete_guide or update_guide.

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 guidelines on how to request each guide type, including examples and recommendations for GEO mode. It advises which source to use for different objectives (e.g., `<engine>_citations` for GEO). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or exclude other operations like updates or deletions.

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?

Discloses token usage and cost variability, which is a behavioral trait. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it fails to mention any other side effects or required permissions.

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?

Short and to the point with two paragraphs and a bold note. Efficiently conveys core purpose and token cost without extraneous 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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, optional content analysis, and token cost. Missing return value details, but acceptable without 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds context for the 'content' parameter (only usable after intent analysis is created), which goes beyond the schema 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?

Clearly states it generates search intent analysis for a guide, with optional content analysis. Distinct from siblings like get_intent (retrieval) and delete_intent (deletion).

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?

Describes what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_intent or other create tools. No exclusions or context beyond the description.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses token usage and cost variability, which adds beyond the schema. However, it does not mention whether the tool is idempotent, how it handles invalid guide IDs, or any side effects.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The token usage note is relevant and separated by whitespace. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 required parameter and no output schema, the description states what it does and mentions token cost. It lacks details on output format or error handling, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% (only guideId). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's 'ID of the guide'. Baseline 3 applies since schema covers all 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 clearly states 'Generate internal linking suggestions for a guide' and explains it analyzes content. This specific verb+resource makes it distinct from sibling tools like get_internal_links or delete_internal_links.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_internal_links or delete_internal_links. The token cost note is useful but does not provide usage criteria or prerequisites.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior. It mentions token usage but does not state whether existing meta is overwritten, whether the guide must exist, or what the output returns.

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 two sentences: one stating purpose and one providing a token usage note. 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?

For a simple one-param generation tool, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral note (token usage). Missing details on output handling, but overall adequate.

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 a single parameter 'guideId' described as 'ID of the guide'. The description adds no further meaning, 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?

The description clearly states the tool generates SEO meta titles and descriptions for a guide, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_outline or create_guides.

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 usage for generating meta based on content analysis and includes a token cost note, but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives compared to other create tools.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions token cost but omits side effects (e.g., whether it creates or modifies a resource) and any authorization requirements.

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 with two sentences and a note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The note about tokens adds relevant info but could be integrated more efficiently.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input and process (SERP analysis, token cost). However, it lacks details about the return value or the generated outline.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter (guideId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 that the tool generates a content outline for a guide, and specifies that it is based on SERP analysis. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_guides or get_outline.

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 mentions token usage but does not provide guidance on when to use the tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., guide must exist).

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'analyze' but fails to mention that the tool can save results to the guide via the saveToGuide parameter (default true). This omission impairs the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects.

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 short but contains redundancy: the first sentence is essentially repeated in the second. While not excessively verbose, it could be more concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the optimization score represents, how to interpret results, and the saving behavior. The agent would likely need to infer or experiment.

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 schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that content is analyzed for a guide. It does not elaborate on 'saveToGuide' or provide examples.

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 it analyzes content optimization score for a specific guide, which conveys the core purpose. However, the name 'create_score' implies creation rather than analysis, creating a slight mismatch. It is somewhat distinguishable from sibling tools like create_eeat or create_intent, but not explicitly differentiated.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_eeat, create_intent), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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?

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as irreversibility of deletion, required permissions, or side effects. The action is self-evident but lacks depth.

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?

Very concise with two short sentences, but the second sentence is redundant with the first. Could be improved by combining into one sentence.

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 (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context like the irreversible nature of deletion or any side effects. It does not leverage the opportunity to add value beyond the 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 coverage is 100% with the only parameter 'id' described as 'The ID of the guide to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the action (delete) and resource (guide), but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'delete_guides' which might delete multiple guides. The phrase 'a specific guide' implies singular, but could be more 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or consequences mentioned. The description does not address when to use delete_guide vs delete_guides or update_guide.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that the tool deletes multiple guides, but lacks details on what exactly is deleted, permissions required, reversibility, or any side effects.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the key action. No 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 tool has no parameters, the description should explain how the guides to delete are selected (e.g., by IDs, filters, or all). This critical context is missing, making the tool's use ambiguous.

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 0 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 applies due to no 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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'multiple guides', distinguishing it from the sibling 'delete_guide' which handles single guides.

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 usage for deleting multiple guides at once, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., delete_guide), nor provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Delete' and 'Removes' with no additional context about irreversibility, permissions, or side effects. The action is implied destructive, but no explicit warnings.

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 convey the purpose efficiently. The first sentence is action-oriented; the second is slightly redundant but clarifies the removal aspect. 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 simple deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not cover error cases or reliance on existing intent analysis, but the basic functionality is clear.

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 only parameter guideId is described in the schema with 'ID of the guide'. The description mentions 'for the given guide' but adds no extra meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to elaborate, but it also does not enhance understanding.

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 specifies the verb 'Delete' and resource 'generated intent analysis for a guide', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_guide, delete_meta) by naming the specific resource.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete intent analysis vs. get or create it). There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for safe use.

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?

No annotations provided. The description only states the deletion action without disclosing side effects (e.g., reversibility, permissions required, or impact on associated data). Minimal behavioral insight beyond the obvious.

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 concise sentences that directly state the purpose. No redundant or unnecessary information. 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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is functional but lacks usage context and behavioral details. It is minimally complete but could be improved with brief guidelines or constraints.

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% for the single parameter 'guideId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (ID of the guide). Baseline 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 clearly states the action (Delete) and the specific resource (generated internal-links suggestions for a guide). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_guide or delete_intent by scoping to internal-links suggestions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other delete tools). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent is left without context for selection.

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?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it removes previously generated meta but does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens if the guide or meta does not exist.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no superfluous 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 simple delete tool with one parameter, the description covers the core function but omits edge cases like nonexistent resources or confirmation of deletion, leaving the agent to infer.

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% for the single parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's indication that guideId identifies the guide.

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 deletes generated meta for a guide, specifying it removes meta titles/descriptions. It effectively distinguishes from sibling delete tools for other resources.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as delete_guide or delete_intent. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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 discloses that the tool removes 'previously generated outline data,' indicating destructive behavior. However, it does not state whether deletion is idempotent, what happens if the outline does not exist, or any side effects. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 with two short sentences that directly state the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, but could incorporate a usage hint without increasing length.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic action and resource. However, it lacks information on return values, error handling, and when to prefer this over sibling delete tools, making it minimally complete.

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 100% coverage with a description for guideId. The tool description does not add any significant meaning beyond that, merely restating that the outline is 'for the guide.' 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('outline for a guide'), and specifies that it removes 'previously generated' outline data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_outline or delete_guide.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_guide) or under what conditions deletion is appropriate. Prerequisites, such as the need for an existing outline, are not mentioned.

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?

Explains that tokens are shared across features and endpoint location for historical reasons. No annotations provided, but description covers read-only nature. Could add rate limits or caching info.

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?

Short, front-loaded with key info. 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?

Describes return value (number of tokens) and provides broader context about token usage across AI features.

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?

No parameters, so schema covers 100%. Description adds context about token usage across features, beyond what schema provides.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('AI tokens'). Specifies scope ('current user'). Distinguishes from related concepts like guide-creation credits.

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 to use (to get AI tokens for all AI features) and when not (guide-creation credits). Suggests alternative for combined view.

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?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only ('Lecture seule'), admin-only, and details the returned data (delta signed, balance after, source, author, reference). It also mentions the ability to reconstruct balance at an arbitrary date and a coherence check. This provides comprehensive transparency.

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 somewhat lengthy (5-6 lines) but efficiently conveys all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured with a clear title followed by details. Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming could be possible without losing clarity.

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 complexity of the tool and the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (libellés, delta, balance, source, author, reference), the coherence check, admin restriction, and the arbitrary date parameter. It covers all essential aspects, making it complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke 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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (at, limit, userId). The description adds context about the 'at' parameter by restating its purpose ('solde reconstruit à une date arbitraire'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. The additional details about output fields do not directly improve parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a complete and immutable timeline of credit movements for a user, specifying the resource (credit ledger) and action (get). It also distinguishes itself by emphasizing the admin-only scope and unique features like balance reconstruction and consistency checks, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_credits.

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 clearly states it is reserved for administrators ('Réservé aux administrateurs'), providing a clear usage condition. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the specific nature of the tool implies its appropriate context. The lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable given its unique functionality.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the balance structure, the distinction between credits and tokens, and how each is consumed. It also hints at authentication ('authenticated user'). It could be more explicit about error conditions or rate limits, but for a read-only tool, this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with bullet points and bold text, front-loading the key purpose. It contains no fluff, but the explanation of currencies could be slightly more concise. Still, 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return values (credits, tokens, hasUnlimitedCredits) and provides context on consumption. It references another endpoint for pricing. It covers the essential aspects for a balance-checking 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 (100% coverage). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining the return structure (credits, tokens, hasUnlimitedCredits), adding value 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 returns the user's balance, distinguishing between credits and AI tokens. It uses specific verbs ('Get user balance') and resource ('guide credits + AI tokens'), and effectively differentiates from sibling tools like get_aissistant_tokens and get_credit_ledger by explaining the two different currencies.

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 context on when to use this tool (to retrieve the authenticated user's balance) and contrasts the two currencies, helping avoid confusion. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention direct alternatives, though the sibling list is available.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals polling nature and status outcomes, but omits side effects, authorization, rate limits, or behavior if both IDs provided. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Four sentences, no filler. Purpose, parameter choices, and polling instruction are front-loaded. Every sentence is necessary.

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, so description should explain return fields. It mentions 'status' but not other fields like results, errors, or structure. Lacks completeness for an async polling 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by stating eeatId is returned by POST and guideId fetches latest analysis, going beyond the schema's explanations.

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 retrieves E-E-A-T analysis results, distinguishing it from siblings like create_eeat (creation) and get_eeat_competitors (different resource). The verb 'get' and resource are specific.

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 when to pass eeatId (specific analysis) vs guideId (latest analysis) and instructs polling until status is done or failed. It lacks explicit exclusions or guidance against alternatives among siblings.

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?

Discloses the asynchronous polling behavior and status checks. With no annotations, it does not cover auth, rate limits, or read-only nature, but provides adequate behavioral context for use.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Essential information is front-loaded and each 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?

The description explains the async behavior and status progression. Lacks explicit return format details, but for a retrieval tool with no output schema, it provides sufficient context.

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 single parameter 'guideId' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema's 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 retrieves E-E-A-T analysis results for a guide's competitors, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_eeat' by specifying competitors.

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 explicit guidance on polling until 'pending' is 0 and that individual results are available when 'status' is 'done'. No alternatives listed, but the async usage is well explained.

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?

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the implied read-only operation. No mention of side effects, authentication, or rate limits.

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 key information, no waste. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. Description lacks details about the response format or fields returned, which would be helpful for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (single parameter 'id' described as 'The ID of the guide to retrieve'). Description adds no extra meaning 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves data for a specific guide, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_guides (plural) and other get_* tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_guides exist, but no exclusions or context provided.

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?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states read-only reading but omits details like pagination behavior, default page size, sorting order, or potential rate limits. Minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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, but the second sentence ('Returns a list of guides...') largely repeats the first. Could be condensed into one sentence. No extraneous information, but not optimally 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 no output schema and only pagination parameters, description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify default page size, maximum page size, whether guides are sorted, or if there is any filtering. For a simple list tool, slightly lacking.

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 both parameters (page, pageSize) described. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Description clearly states 'List user's guides' with verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling 'get_guide' which likely returns a single guide. Purpose is clear but could be more specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_guide, create_guides, or delete_guides. The context from siblings is not utilized to provide selection 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?

With no annotations, the description only implies a read-only, non-destructive operation but fails to disclose behavior for missing guides or missing intent results, authorization needs, or rate limits.

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 are concise and front-loaded, but could be more precise about the action.

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?

Adequate for a simple retrieval with one parameter, but lacks explanation of return values (no output schema) and conditions like requiring intent to be created first.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'ID of the guide'.

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 retrieves existing intent analysis for a guide, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_intent and delete_intent.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when intent analysis has not been created (use create_intent) or prerequisites like guide existence.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it retrieves suggestions, with no mention of idempotency, authorization needs, or what happens when no suggestions exist.

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 with two short sentences, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It could be improved by hinting at the content of suggestions or the format of the 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter guideId, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves internal linking suggestions for a guide. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_guide or get_intent, which also retrieve resources, but the resource type is specific enough.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_internal_links or delete_internal_links. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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 implies a read-only operation with 'Get' and 'Retrieves', which is correct. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or other behavioral aspects beyond the basic retrieval nature.

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 only two sentences, but the second sentence is largely redundant to the first, so it could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 no output schema, the description does not detail the return format or structure. It provides the basic purpose but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the output.

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 100% coverage for guideId with a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond 'for a guide', 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 clearly states the tool retrieves generated meta titles and descriptions for a guide, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_meta and delete_meta by focusing on the 'get' operation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_guide might also include meta). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states that it retrieves data, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, permissions, or rate limits. The term 'get' implies read, but lacks explicit transparency.

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, no unnecessary words. First sentence provides the core purpose, second adds detail about the result. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return type ('flat heading list'). It is mostly complete but could mention error cases or that the guide must exist. Still, it covers the essential information.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's 'ID of the guide'. It does not explain the format or source of guideId.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'generated page structure (flat heading list) for a guide', directly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_guide' and 'create_outline'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context like needing a guide ID from another call.

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?

No annotations provided; the description fully bears responsibility. It discloses the output type (token counts per endpoint) and includes a formula computation detail, which is sufficient for this simple read tool.

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 clear sentences plus a formatted note. Front-loaded 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns and a specific formula. Complete for the agent to understand its use.

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?

No parameters exist, so the schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4; the description adds no param info but explains output adequately.

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 gets API token usage costs for endpoints, distinguishing it from siblings like get_usage or get_credit_ledger. The note on the specific field adds precision.

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 it's for checking token costs but does not explicitly state when to use it over other tools or provide exclusions.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool does not consume credits, which is critical for cost-aware agent decisions, and specifies the return fields. Additional details like rate limits or auth requirements are absent.

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 succinctly convey purpose, return values, and costlessness. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description fully covers the tool's role (monitor usage) and unique behavior (no credit consumption). An agent can confidently use it without further clarification.

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 has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to explain them. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no parameter details are 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 description clearly states 'Get current API usage and quota status' and enumerates the specific values returned (usage, quota limit, remaining count, renewal date). This verb-resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like get_tokens_usage and get_credits.

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 usage by noting 'Does not consume credits' and 'Aligned on the Stripe subscription billing cycle,' providing context but no explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternative tool names. Agents must infer appropriate usage from the information 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?

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. Only mentions ownership and that it updates fields. Lacks details on side effects (e.g., cannibalisation analysis triggered by group change), error behavior, rate limits, or idempotency. Minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides details and constraint. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key info.

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, so description should hint at return value. Missing explanation of what the tool returns after update (e.g., updated guide object or success message). Also lacks information on permissions beyond ownership (e.g., plan restrictions mentioned in shareState parameter description). Incomplete for a 7-parameter mutation 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 baseline is 3. Description lists editable parameter names (group, status, share state, linked URL, meta, hidden expressions) but adds no additional meaning beyond schema's descriptions. Adequate but not additive.

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 'Update a guide' and lists editable fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_guide (read), delete_guide (delete), and create_guides (create).

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?

Specifies 'Only owners may update' as a prerequisite. Implicitly indicates when to use (modify existing guide) vs alternatives (create, read, delete). No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context is clear.

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