Turn a ShortlistLens result into a concise fixed-scope implementation brief for a Buyer-Readiness Scorecard or a 72-hour AI Buyer-Readiness Sprint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| business_name | Yes | The business to scope. | |
| priority_gaps | Yes | Top gaps identified by the diagnostic. | |
| review_trust_score | Yes | Review-trust score from supplied evidence. | |
| website_evaluability_score | Yes | Website score from the diagnostic. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies any state, or any potential side effects or limitations. The lack of any behavioral notes leaves the agent uncertain about safety or resource implications.
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 with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and key context, making it easy to parse and understand.
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 provides sufficient context for a straightforward generation tool: it names the inputs and the intended output. While it does not elaborate on the format of the brief or any assumptions, the simplicity of the tool means this is likely complete enough. A dedicated output schema would have made it fully 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?
All four parameters are described in the schema, though quite minimally. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, such as how the scores relate to the generated brief or any expected value ranges. With 100% schema coverage, a 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 tool's function: turning a ShortlistLens result into a fixed-scope implementation brief for a Buyer-Readiness Scorecard or 72-hour sprint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., compare_shortlist_candidates, inspect_website) by specifying a unique output deliverable.
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 when a ShortlistLens result is available but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct roles: inspect_website gathers facts, score_website_evaluability produces a rubric score, organize_review_evidence handles review signals, compare_shortlist_candidates merges scores, and generate_paid_scope produces a brief. The only mild ambiguity is between inspect_website and score_website_evaluability, since both involve website inspection, though their outputs differ.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: compare, generate, inspect, organize, and score are clear actions with descriptive objects. The naming is predictable and makes the tool set easy to navigate.
Five tools is well-scoped for the server's niche buyer-readiness purpose. Each tool contributes to a focused workflow without redundancy or unnecessary sprawl.
The workflow covers website inspection, website scoring, review evidence organization, comparison, and downstream brief generation. However, compare_shortlist_candidates expects a review trust score, and no tool actually computes that score from organized review evidence, leaving a notable gap in the core shortlisting flow.