OBZDN Agent

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the returned figures are 'from' prices and the final price is only confirmed on a 20-minute call, which tells the agent not to present the value as a firm quote. It stops short of describing what happens when neither id is supplied.

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, zero filler, and the core function (starting price for X or Y) is front-loaded before the caveat about final pricing. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema and zero required parameters, the description should clarify the minimal valid invocation and the shape of the result; it only partly does so via 'or'. It covers both selection modes and the pricing caveat, but leaves open what happens with no arguments and what fields a quote contains.

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

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

Schema coverage is 67%, with tool_id and service_id already described in the schema; the description restates them ('by aitools id', 'by service id') and its use of 'or' usefully implies the two are alternatives. team_size is undocumented in both places, and the description never states whether an id is required or what a zero-id call returns. 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 states a specific resource and outcome: a starting price quote from OBZDN for either tool setup (by aitools id) or service delivery (by service id). The two modes are distinguished clearly. It does not, however, name or contrast itself against siblings like get_tool, request_setup, or list_services, 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?

It implies a workflow (quote first, price confirmed on a 20-minute call) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and does not point to request_setup as the follow-up action for actually booking the work. Routing between get_setup_quote and request_setup is left entirely to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'Full', hinting the record is not truncated, but says nothing about returned fields, error behavior, or 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the provenance clue is bracketed rather than buried in prose. Slightly terse for a getter whose return shape is never hinted at.

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-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain returns, this is close to adequate. It still leaves the returned listing contents and unknown-id behavior unspecified, which an agent calling it cold would want.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema gives no description. The description partially compensates by telling the agent the id comes from search_tools, but adds no format or validity detail for the id itself.

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 resource (a single tool's full listing) and the selection key (its id), and the parenthetical '(from search_tools)' distinguishes it from the sibling search_tools. The verb is implicit in 'listing' rather than an explicit 'fetch/retrieve', keeping it just 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?

The '(from search_tools)' note implies the id must originate from a prior search, which is useful routing. It never states when this tool is preferred over search_tools or what happens for an unknown id, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds what the read actually returns (starting prices, scope of work, timelines). It does not mention ordering, filtering, or response shape beyond content, which is acceptable for a zero-parameter listing.

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 noun-phrase sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and its contents. It is slightly fragmentary (no explicit verb), which keeps it just short of ideal.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context about what comes back. The only real gap is routing guidance against the sibling quote/setup tools.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description's mention of pricing/timeline fields is return-value framing rather than 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 names a concrete resource (OBZDN's done-for-you services) and enumerates the payload an agent will get back (starting prices, inclusions, timelines). It is clearly distinct from get_setup_quote and request_setup in substance, but never explicitly says how it differs from those siblings.

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: an agent can infer this is the browse-before-you-quote step, but the description never states when to call this versus get_setup_quote or request_setup, and gives no 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?

Annotations declare the write/open-world/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds real context beyond that: third-party data sharing with OBZDN, the security posture ('never asks for passwords; access is granted by the owner on the call'), and the return artifact. It omits the practical consequence of idempotentHint=false (duplicate submissions create duplicate requests).

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: action, precondition, return value plus security note. The gating constraint is front-loaded before the mechanics, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 10-param, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers consent, data sharing, the returned booking link, and trust boundaries. Remaining gaps are the duplicate-request risk and any guidance on the six undocumented optional fields, which are largely self-evident from their names.

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 40% across 10 parameters, so the description should compensate, and it largely does not. It reinforces the meaning of human_approved and the 'contact details' bundle, but phone, website, team_size, email, contact_name and business_name get no semantic help in either place.

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 and target ('Hand a setup job to OBZDN') and states the outcome ('Returns the booking link ... 20-minute call'), which separates it from the read-only siblings get_setup_quote and get_tool. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, so it is clear but not fully 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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: 'Only call this when they asked for it AND agreed to share these contact details with OBZDN.' That is a concrete when-to-use rule rather than implied usage. No alternative tool is named for the case where the user has not yet consented or only wants pricing.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape of the result set (per-tool summary, fit, starting price, caveat, links), which matters because no output schema exists. It omits behavior on empty results or result caps.

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, front-loaded with the domain and audience, then the return contents. The enumerated return fields are slightly listy but each carries information for the agent, and there is no filler.

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

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

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back, and annotations cover the read-only/world scope. It is nearly complete for a 6-param search tool, missing only edge-case behavior such as empty results or whether more than `limit` matches can be paged.

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 83%, so the schema already documents query, audience, category, max_monthly_usd, and open_source_only. The description only echoes `limit` indirectly; it adds no filtering syntax or semantic nuance beyond structured data. 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource (the aitools.obzdn.co directory), and scopes the audience to owner-operators and small teams. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_tool, though it never names siblings explicitly.

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 says nothing about when to reach for this search versus get_tool, get_setup_quote, or request_setup, and sets no exclusions or prerequisites. The discovery-then-detail pattern is only weakly implied.

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