DefaultBench

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it preserves sponsored ordering and limits the comparison to 'objective bounded evidence', which is consistent with openWorldHint=false and goes 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the scope, the side-by-side format, and the ordering guarantee.

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 read-only comparison tool with an output schema, the description covers the key behavior and a critical side-effect guarantee. It is slightly weakened by undefined domain terminology ('objective bounded evidence'), but the title and input schema supply the 2–5 resource bound.

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 does not meaningfully explain the resources parameter or the required type/id entry structure. The schema itself documents the array constraints and enum values, but the description adds no parameter-level clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('compare') and clearly names the resources involved, with a concrete output style: side-by-side comparison of declared fields and objective bounded evidence. It also distinguishes itself from ranking/mutation siblings by stating it does not change sponsored ordering.

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 the intended use—comparing two to five resources—but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like inspect_organic_resource or validate_organic_resource. There are no exclusion conditions or alternative 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?

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the challenge is consumed ('one'), the token is bound to a listing, and the token expires in five minutes. This helps an agent understand single-use, non-idempotent behavior that annotations only hint at via idempotentHint=false.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Consume') and result, with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase earns its place by adding a constraint or semantic detail.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers inputs, the consumed challenge, and the token result with expiry and listing binding. The only notable gap is not explicitly saying the challenge must first come from get_seller_analytics_challenge, but the siblings and the description together make this fairly inferable.

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 carries the semantic weight and does so well: 'listing-bound' clarifies listing_id, 'wallet-signed challenge' covers challenge_id and wallet_signature as a pair, and the returned token's expiry/binding is stated. It does not break out each parameter individually, but the input schema already provides formats.

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 verb ('Consume') and resource (wallet-signed challenge) and a concrete result ('listing-bound five-minute bearer token'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the sibling get_seller_analytics_challenge as the source of the challenge, so some sibling differentiation is implicit 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?

The phrase 'one wallet-signed challenge' implies this tool is used after a challenge has been obtained and signed, but the description never states that prerequisite or names the get_seller_analytics_challenge sibling as the alternative/prior step. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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 read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds 'current' and 'time-limited', indicating the returned claim data is temporal and may expire, and clarifies that claim status is independent of paid rank/quality. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler or repetition. Every sentence contributes context.

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 single-parameter schema, output schema, and annotations reduce the burden on the description. Still, the definition leaves the nature of a claim status underspecified and provides no usage routing, so it is not fully complete for an agent deciding between this and related 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions resource_id or how it identifies the claim. The parameter name and title imply it is a resource identifier, and the schema supplies UUID constraints, but the description adds no semantic value beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the relevant output (current time-limited domain and wallet controller link), and the title clarifies it is about resource claim status. It is largely distinguishable from the sibling tools, though the relationship between 'claim status' and the returned domain/link is not fully explicit.

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 second sentence gives an implied exclusion ('does not affect paid rank or quality'), hinting that this tool is not a ranking/quality signal. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of a sibling, nor does it offer explicit alternatives.

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?

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by specifying that only non-secret data is returned and by naming the output dimensions: freshness, state, and active/stale counts. It does not contradict the annotations and gives enough behavioral nuance for a no-argument read-only call.

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 filler. Every term — 'non-secret', 'synchronization freshness', 'state', 'active/stale counts', 'approved organic sources' — adds meaningful 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 zero required parameters, an output schema available, and annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description provides a complete invocation contract. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description focuses on the return payload instead, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource: synchronization freshness, state, and active/stale counts for approved organic sources. The aggregate 'counts' language distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_organic_resource, which implies per-resource inspection. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 this is the tool for querying aggregate organic-source status, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus siblings like inspect_organic_resource or validate_organic_resource. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints, though the scope is reasonably inferable from the title and description.

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 and idempotentHint, so the description's job is lighter. It adds valuable context by clarifying that the result is 'declared provenance plus timestamped bounded' observations and explicitly disclaims trust/safety/endorsement. This aligns with openWorldHint=false and does not contradict any annotation.

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 two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. The second sentence is not filler; it prevents a meaningful class of misinterpretation. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, and the description gives a clear domain-level picture. However, it omits pagination behavior, the role of subject_type, and any usage guidance, so an agent must infer several invocation details.

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 does not compensate. It never explains id, subject_type, limit, cursor, pagination, or the organic/sponsored distinction. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already shows.

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 verb ('Return') and a specific resource: declared provenance plus timestamped bounded conformance and reliability observations. The caveat 'Evidence is not trust, safety, quality, or endorsement' adds useful semantic precision. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the evidence-history scope is reasonably distinct.

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 or named alternative. However, the phrasing implies it should be used when provenance or conformance/reliability observations are needed, and the disclaimer provides a negative boundary: do not use this as trust or endorsement. This is implied guidance rather than explicit routing.

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 idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Return' is consistent with those. It adds limited behavioral context beyond that—primarily the data payload—but does not cover authentication, error behavior, or what happens if the listing does not exist; acceptable for a simple read but no extra depth.

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 sentence of 14 words that is front-loaded with the action and object, followed by specifics. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given an output schema exists and only one required UUID parameter, the description's listing of return fields is likely sufficient for an agent to invoke it. The main gap is not contextualizing the tool against its many siblings, but that is already captured in usage_guidelines; overall completeness is good for this complexity.

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 only parameter, id, is a UUID with no schema description, and the description does not explicitly explain how id maps to a listing. However, the title and the phrase 'Return one paid listing' combined with the required id make the mapping inferable. Since schema coverage is 0% but there is only one obviously named parameter, this is adequate but not compensated beyond the obvious.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), identifies a concrete resource ('one paid listing'), and enumerates the exact data returned (rank, verified payer identity, declared machine endpoints). It clearly distinguishes a single-listing lookup from sibling tools like search_agents by emphasizing 'one' and 'paid'.

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 guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as search_agents or inspect_organic_resource. It does not state what problem it uniquely solves or any exclusions, leaving selection 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 idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with those. It adds valuable behavioral detail: the access_token is short-lived and listing-bound, warning the agent about token expiration and scope. It also lists the returned analytics categories, giving a sense of the response content without redundancy.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource. No filler or repetition; every element earns its place.

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 tool has five parameters and an output schema, which covers return values. The description covers the core resource and auth constraint, but lacks guidance on where to obtain the short-lived token and on the date-range/granularity behavior. These gaps leave an agent with questions before calling the 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?

With zero property descriptions in the schema, the description is the only source of meaning for parameters. It clarifies listing_id ('one listing's') and access_token ('short-lived listing-bound token'), which are the two required fields. However, it does not explain the semantics of from, to, or granularity beyond what the schema's types and enum already provide, so compensation is incomplete.

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 verb ('Read') and precise resource ('one listing's aggregate funnel, spend, rank history, freshness and time series'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The detailed data categories distinguish it from sibling analytics tools, even without naming alternatives. The token requirement adds context without muddying the purpose.

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 conveys the context in which the tool is used: fetching single-listing analytics with a listing-bound token. It implicitly rules out multi-listing or comparison use cases, which are handled by sibling tools like compare_resources. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the challenge is one-time and creates no account or cookie. This helps the agent understand side effects without overstating them, though details like expiration or authorization requirements are not covered.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and target, and the second clarifies an important side-effect boundary. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover mutation behavior, so the description does not need to explain returns. However, it omits explicit parameter mapping and any workflow guidance such as 'use before complete_seller_analytics_challenge'. The description is adequate but relies on inference and sibling names for full context.

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. It indirectly explains that listing_id refers to the listing and wallet_address relates to the verified payer or controller, but it never explicitly maps these to the schema properties. The agent can infer parameter roles but must make some assumptions.

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 starts with a specific verb, 'Create', and clearly identifies the resource as a 'one-time EIP-712 challenge' for a listing's verified payer or controller. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_seller_analytics and complete_seller_analytics_challenge. Even though the tool name begins with 'get', the description unambiguously clarifies the create behavior.

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 the tool is used to initiate a challenge for a verified payer or controller, and the sibling complete_seller_analytics_challenge suggests a follow-up flow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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 idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by stating the result is 'deterministic ranking ordered by cumulative verified payment.' This is consistent with the annotations and adds ordering semantics beyond what annotations provide.

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 filler. The key output concept and ordering rule are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to absorb quickly.

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 value details are not required in the description. However, the presence of cursor and limit parameters means pagination semantics are relevant and unaddressed, leaving the description adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It implicitly covers 'keyword' via the tool name and summary, but it does not explain the meaning of 'limit' or 'cursor' or how pagination works.

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 verb and resource: 'Return the keyword summary and deterministic ranking ordered by cumulative verified payment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_organic_resource, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as compare_resources, quote_rank, or inspect_organic_resource. The intended context is only weakly implied by the title, not the description.

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 idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what is returned, including the conditional 'if one exists' for the controller link, which clarifies expected optional data.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's return contents. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple read-only tool with a single required ID, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could clarify behavior for missing IDs, but the output schema likely covers return structure, so this is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the single 'id' parameter is self-explanatory with a UUID format and pattern. The description reinforces that this id identifies one organic resource, providing enough semantic clarity for the only parameter.

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 ('Return') and precise resources: the intact unpaid imported record, source provenance, and a current verified-controller link. It clearly distinguishes this single-resource inspection tool from siblings like validate_organic_resource and compare_resources.

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 use for inspecting one organic resource by ID, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus alternatives such as validate_organic_resource or compare_resources. An agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure: 'Final rank is determined at settlement,' implying the quoted result is provisional and not the final outcome. This goes beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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 short and front-loaded with the verb 'Calculate,' and every sentence earns its place: one for the core operation, one for the settlement caveat. However, the phrasing is cryptic and could be clearer without adding 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?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the description leaves key context undefined: what an 'informational minimum addition' is, what settlement means, how the wallet parameter affects the quote, and when this tool should be selected over its siblings. This is inadequate for reliable agent 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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it mentions neither 'keyword' nor 'wallet.' 'Higher positions' weakly hints that keyword is the target rank term, but the optional wallet parameter is completely unexplained.

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 action ('Calculate informational minimum additions') but 'informational minimum additions' is opaque jargon, and the resource is described only as 'higher positions.' It is not a tautology, but it does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like inspect_keyword or compare_resources.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling tools are referenced. The settlement caveat is a behavioral note, not a usage condition, so an agent cannot determine when quote_rank is the appropriate choice.

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?

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explaining that sponsored listings include paid rank and cumulative verified bid, while organic resources are unpaid external records with source provenance. This helps the agent interpret what kinds of results to expect, though it does not address pagination, filtering, or ordering 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?

The description is brief—two sentences—and front-loads the core action before explaining sponsored/organic semantics. It avoids unnecessary filler, though 'local inventory' is imprecise and could be clearer.

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 11 parameters, rich enums, and no property descriptions, this description is incomplete. It provides high-level result taxonomy and annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, but it leaves out how to select sources, paginate, filter by freshness, or interpret sort modes, which an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 does not explain any of the 11 parameters such as query, sort, source, freshness, cursor, organic_cursor, or min_success_rate. With low schema coverage and a high parameter count, the description was expected to compensate but fails to add meaningful parameter-level meaning.

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 a search action over inventory and distinguishes two result categories: sponsored listings with paid rank/verified bid and organic resources with provenance. This gives useful semantics that go beyond the title, although 'local inventory' is somewhat vague and does not explicitly mention agents.

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 this tool is for searching discovery results but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools like get_discovery_sources, inspect_organic_resource, or compare_resources. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are provided.

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 and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and 'never creates a listing or payment.' It adds meaningful behavioral context about what is validated without contradicting 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?

Two short sentences are front-loaded with 'Read-only validation' and every clause contributes either scope or reassurance. There is no filler or repetition beyond what is useful.

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-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description adequately covers the validation subject and side-effect profile. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that; a minor gap is omitting resource_id semantics.

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 resource_id or explains how it feeds the validation. The single parameter is fairly self-descriptive from its name and UUID pattern, but the description still leaves the agent to infer the parameter's role.

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 identifies the action ('validation'), the target resource ('organic_resource'), and the specific validation dimensions (source provenance, canonical endpoint, controller state). It does not explicitly differentiate from the similar-sounding sibling inspect_organic_resource, so it misses the top score.

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 a pre-flight, read-only validation context and explicitly excludes listing/payment creation, but it never states when to choose this tool over inspect_organic_resource or other siblings. Usage guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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