ScanScam Integrity

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds non-obvious context: it requires no authentication, is public, and accepts no transaction data. These are behavioral constraints an agent needs to know and that annotations do not reveal.

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 with no filler. The identity ('Public, no-auth storefront') comes first, then the return content, then a critical constraint.

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, no-output-schema discovery tool, the description tells the agent what it will get, the access model, and an important exclusion. Nothing essential is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately doesn't fabricate parameter guidance; the baseline 4 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 clear verb-plus-resource: it Returns what ScanScam Integrity can verify, the commercial model, and how to express demand. Framing it as a storefront rather than a transaction or service request distinguishes it from the sibling integrity_request_service.

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 signals when to use this tool: as a public, no-auth discovery/storefront step before expressing demand. It also tells agents what not to do ('Do not send transaction data'). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or say 'use integrity_request_service instead,' so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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 do not convey read-only or side-effect behavior, so the description carries the burden. It states it is a demand signal and not a transaction submission, which adds some behavioral context, but does not disclose whether it persists anything, triggers actions, or returns results. This is partial 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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and a key constraint (categories only). It contains no fluff, though it could have added a bit more context without losing efficiency.

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 tool with 6 parameters (2 required), multiple enums, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks usage context relative to the sibling, parameter guidance, and any behavioral specifics (e.g., what happens after a request). An agent would need to infer too much.

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 50% (need, agent_name, desired_outcome have descriptions; urgency, budget_per_check, willingness_to_pay do not). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond repeating that categories are used, which only reinforces the need enum. It does not compensate for the undocumented 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 (tell/request) and resource (independent service), and clarifies that it is a demand/fit signal, not a transaction submission. This distinguishes it from transaction tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling integrity_discover.

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 service is needed ('Tell ScanScam what kind of independent service your agent needs'), and explicitly says to use categories only. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this versus integrity_discover, nor any exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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