Trust Live

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the comparison dimensions but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what constitutes a "matching" provider.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the comparison scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover key safety traits. However, the sole parameter task_requirements is opaque, and the description provides no guidance on how to structure it, leaving a meaningful gap for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain the structure or expected content of task_requirements beyond what the schema already states, and the schema description itself is minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ("Compare") and resource ("providers") and enumerates the comparison dimensions. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like recommend_provider or get_provider_profile, but the core purpose is 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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb "Compare".

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description reinforces this by stating the provider tool is not invoked, but says nothing about what the evaluation returns, whether credentials are needed, or how failures surface, so it adds only marginal context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition; the non-invocation constraint is stated immediately. It is efficient, though for a six-parameter tool the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal concision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description omits critical context for a tool with three required and three optional parameters: what 'Safe-Call constraints' are, what data_classes or user_confirmed govern, and how the caller should act on a verdict. For this complexity level the description is materially 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 description coverage is only 17% – just the nested 'arguments' object is documented. The description contributes no parameter meaning whatsoever for provider_id, capability_id, data_classes, user_confirmed, or repository_visibility, leaving over half the surface undecoded in both schema and prose.

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 names a specific verb (evaluate) and resource (Safe-Call constraints) and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('without invoking the provider tool'), so an agent can tell this is a dry-run/preflight check rather than an execution tool. It does not contrast itself with siblings like get_capability or recommend_provider, and 'Safe-Call' is undefined jargon, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'without invoking the provider tool' suggests this is used to preview constraint outcomes before an actual call. There is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no routing to or away from the sibling 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that the result includes 'evidence and Safe-Call contract', which is useful payload context, but it discloses nothing about failure modes, auth needs, or lookup-miss behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead, and the qualifier follows. Every clause carries information, though the 'evidence and Safe-Call contract' clause could be more precise about what the agent receives.

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 one-required-param read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core act and the return payload, so return-value documentation is correctly delegated. What is missing is sibling differentiation and any hint about identifier provenance, leaving the agent to guess where a valid capability_id comes from.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema only constrains length (1-128) without explaining what the value is. The description partially compensates by identifying it as a 'canonical action ID', which conveys that a standardized identifier format is expected, but gives no example, source, or format detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('every provider capability'), scoped by a canonical action ID. It is discernible from get_provider_profile and evaluate_safe_call, but the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'with this canonical action ID' implies a keyed lookup, but nothing tells the agent when to reach for this tool instead of get_provider_profile or evaluate_safe_call, and no prerequisites are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notion of a 'canonical' profile and 'evidence references', but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the provider_id is unknown — modest added value above the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly jargon-dense ('safe-call contracts') but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing for correct invocation is the boundary against get_capability (does the profile already include capabilities?) and any hint about the identifier format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions provider_id at all — not its format (UUID, slug, vendor-qualified string), not whether it is case-sensitive, not what a valid canonical identifier looks like. For a tool whose only input is an identifier, this is a real gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a canonical provider profile') and enumerates what the payload contains (capabilities, evidence references, safe-call contracts). However it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling get_capability, which the phrase 'with capabilities' arguably overlaps with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_capability, compare_providers, or recommend_provider. The agent must infer the choice of tool from names alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral signal about output shape (hard filter first, then component scores and evidence) and a 'Safe-Call constraints' concept, but does not explain the filtering/threshold behavior or what a rejection looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating both the action and the deliverable. It is dense with jargon (hard-filter, Safe-Call) that is not unpacked, which slightly reduces clarity but not 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?

With a rich annotation set, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema that already documents returns, the description covers the essentials of what the tool produces. It falls short on the missing when-to-use routing among five siblings, which is the main contextual gap.

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?

Only one parameter (task_requirements) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it as structured capability/operation/auth/payment/data/evidence requirements. The description adds nothing about what fields that object expects or how requirements drive hard filters.

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?

Names a specific verb (Recommend) and resource (provider), and enumerates what the result contains: hard-filter outcomes, component scores, evidence, and Safe-Call constraints. This distinguishes it reasonably from compare_providers and evaluate_safe_call, though the relationship to siblings is only hinted at rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative despite five sibling tools that overlap conceptually (compare_providers, evaluate_safe_call). The mention of 'hard-filter' and 'Safe-Call' implies context but leaves the agent to infer selection conditions.

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