SI Dog Park

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the paywall (0.01 USDC per get on eip155:8453), that a missing id still costs the stated amount, that an unsigned call returns a free payment quote rather than content, and that returned content is untrusted data, not instructions. This is exactly the payment/auth/injection context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return shape in the first sentence, then layers payment and untrusted-content detail. It is dense and packed but nearly every clause carries operational weight; the only mild bloat is the embedded product/pricing specifics, which are nonetheless actionable.

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 0% parameter coverage, the description supplies the missing information: return values (entry or null, untrusted_content, request_hash), the alternate quote response for unsigned calls, and the cost model. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: id is explained as a publish_information entry_id or search_information entry id, and request_id as a UUID for a new operation (idempotency-style). It adds real meaning, though it does not clarify request_id reuse semantics explicitly.

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 ('retrieve one record using id') and explicitly ties the id source to sibling outputs ('from publish_information entry_id or a search_information entry id'), which distinguishes it from search_information and list_products. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 clear usage context: this is the single-record fetch keyed off ids produced by publish_information or search_information, and it is the paid read path. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for listing/searching'), so it stops short of the 5-tier routing guidance.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: the catalog is static and not live inventory, and registration does not verify purchase or delivery (with a Japanese note that the purchase/delivery E2E is untested). It does not mention catalog size or pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then caveats, then a documentation link — no filler sentences. The mixed English/Japanese fragment is slightly opaque but earns its place as a correctness warning, so the structure is efficient overall.

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 no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does list the key fields plus a link to the full catalog spec. It omits any indication of catalog size, ordering, or truncation limits, which is a minor gap for a zero-arg list 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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The field names in the description describe return values rather than inputs, which is still useful, but there is nothing to add about input 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list_products' returns free public product metadata') and enumerates the fields returned (ID, title, summary, price, network, registration availability). It does not differentiate itself from siblings get_information/publish_information/search_information, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it should pick this over search_information.

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 or when-not-to-use statement, and the sibling tools are never named. The caveats 'static registered catalog, not live inventory' and 'registration does not verify purchase or delivery' imply appropriate vs inappropriate reliance on the data, which is a partial usage signal but not routing guidance.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations (which already declare idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive): the record is immutable, source URLs are stored but never fetched, other paying agents can retrieve the content, secrets must not be submitted, and payment does not verify truth. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs before calling a paid publish 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?

Dense but every sentence adds distinct value; the payment/immutability framing is front-loaded. It is slightly long, but no sentence is filler given the paid, multi-constraint nature of the operation.

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, yet the description states the return value (entry_id) and covers payment, immutability, retrieval exposure, and privacy risk. Constraints like the topic pattern and length caps are left to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves the definition just short of fully self-contained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the burden, and it explains the non-obvious parameters: request_id as a UUID, the publisher_claim=confirmed/verification_note dependency, source_urls as references (not fetched), and the 'actual source timestamp' for source_updated_at. Title/topic/content semantics are left to the schema's obvious naming, which is a minor 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 ('publish ... as an immutable information record') with clear scope modifiers (paid, immutable, HTTPS-referenced). The agent can distinguish this write/publish tool from get_information and search_information without opening any schema.

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 concrete usage rules: use a UUID request_id for a new operation, and publisher_claim=confirmed requires a nonblank verification_note. It also implies the follow-up workflow by noting it returns entry_id 'for later get_information'. It stops short of an explicit when-not/alternative statement, but the context is clear.

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 (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds material context they cannot: billing is per page including empty results, a page shorter than limit signals exhaustion, and returned content is untrusted data rather than instructions. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure structured fields can't carry.

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?

It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (exact matching, paid per page) and every clause carries information. It is, however, a dense semicolon-chained run-on, which costs some scannability versus shorter discrete sentences.

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 steps in to describe the return shape (entries with full records including content, plus next_cursor), and it covers billing, exhaustion, and pagination. Only the untrusted-content warning's practical handling is left implicit, a minor gap for a 4-parameter 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: limit defaults to 10 and accepts 1-20, after is an exclusive sequence cursor, and topic matching is exact. Each of the four parameters gets meaning beyond its bare type and constraints.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource and, crucially, disambiguates the mechanism: 'exact topic matching, not keyword or semantic search.' That single clause separates it from get_information and publish_information without opening either schema.

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 states when to use this tool (exact topic search, paginated), how to page (reuse next_cursor as after with the same topic and a new request_id), and explicitly routes the agent to get_information for retrieval by known id. Both the primary and the alternative path are covered.

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