Guides by TIC

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape ('what was checked, what could not be checked, and the sources') and that results are grounded in a fixed 15-scheme knowledge base.

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 the core action and grounded in named artifacts; every sentence adds information. The long parenthetical enumerating offer types is illustrative but slightly bloated for the value it adds.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return semantics ('what was checked, what could not be checked, and the sources') and the knowledge basis. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears absent.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The pitch in the user's words'), so the schema already carries the burden. The description's list of offer types (course, trading bot, done-for-you store, etc.) loosely illustrates what to pass but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 (compare/check) and resource (an 'AI income' pitch someone was pitched), and grounds it in concrete artifacts ('the 15 schemes in the Reality Check and the do not start guides'). This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_platform_rules, get_way, and search_ways.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger context: 'Use before giving an opinion on any AI income pitch.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it offers no when-not or named alternative tool for adjacent tasks.

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, openWorldHint false, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the content domain (fees, norms, removal triggers) but no operational context such as data freshness, rate limits, or return format. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences and front-loads the purpose before listing example platforms. It is efficient, though the platform list is somewhat long and could arguably live in the schema; no sentence is wasted.

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 lookup tool with one fully documented parameter and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains what information is returned (fees, norms, removal policies, automation rules) and what platforms are supported, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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 100% and the parameter already has examples ('etsy' or 'upwork'), so the baseline is 3. The description expands on valid platform values by listing many supported platforms (Etsy, Gumroad, Fiverr, Upwork, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, X, dev.to, Amazon programmes), adding useful meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource (platform rules and fees) and details the exact scope: fees, house norms, account removal triggers, and automation/AI policies. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like check_offer or search_ways 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?

Usage is implied by the content scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives. The description does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings or under what conditions it should be called.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating what the response contains (what you sell, earnings note, setup, rules, stop rule, risks, public link), which is otherwise undocumented since there is no output schema.

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 that leads with the purpose before the parenthetical clarification. It is a long enumerated list, but every element maps to content the agent needs, so little is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so by listing the guide's sections and the public link. Combined with the search_ways provenance, an agent has enough to call it correctly and know what to expect back.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented with an example and the 'part of its name' flexibility. The description mostly repeats this ('id from search_ways, or its name'), adding only the provenance detail about where the id comes from, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Full detail for one way to earn') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling search_ways by noting the id originates there. An agent can distinguish it from search_ways and get_platform_rules 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?

Explicitly signals the workflow context ('id from search_ways'), telling the agent this is the follow-up to a search. It does not state when-not to use it or how it differs from get_platform_rules, even though it claims to include 'the platform rules', which leaves slight overlap ambiguity.

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, non-destructive), so the description's contribution is return-shape disclosure: results are newest-first and each item carries a 'so what' and a source. That is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It stops short of saying what happens when no changes exist or whether the list is truncated.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the optional filter last. Jargon like 'headwinds and tailwinds' and 'so what' adds flavor and a little ambiguity, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 carries the return-value burden and does describe item structure and ordering. However, for a tool whose sibling get_platform_rules likely overlaps, the unresolved routing question and the unmentioned default/max result count leave clear gaps.

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%: the platform parameter is documented, but limit (default 5, max 15) is not. The description's 'filter by platform' merely restates the schema and adds nothing about accepted id/name forms or what the limit bounds the results to, so it does not compensate for the uncovered 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?

States a concrete resource (dated changes affecting online earners) and enumerates its content types (fee changes, new rules, headwinds/tailwinds), plus ordering. It is clearly not the same as check_offer or search_ways, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from get_platform_rules, which sits in the same domain.

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 only usage statement is 'Optionally filter by platform', which is a capability, not guidance. There is no indication of when to reach for this instead of get_platform_rules or check_offer, both of which plausibly cover overlapping ground.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: corpus size (40 guides), that results are 'short cards with a link to each full guide' rather than full content, and the filter axes available. No pagination or result-count behavior is described.

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 tightly packed sentences: what is searched, how to filter/scope, what comes back, and when to reach for it. Scope and return shape are front-loaded and nothing is redundant or padded.

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 carries the return contract itself ('short cards with a link to each full guide'), which it does. Combined with corpus description, filter mention and usage examples, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is ~80%, so the schema already documents query, verdict, free_to_start and max_minutes_per_day. The description's 'Filter by verdict, time per day, or free-to-start' is essentially a prose restatement of those parameters and adds no syntax or format detail beyond them; 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 and resource ('Search 40 sourced guides to earning online'), names the topical scope, and is clearly distinct from siblings like get_way (full guide) and check_offer. The parenthetical categories pin down exactly what corpus is searched.

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?

Supplies concrete use cases ('what could I do with 1 hour a day', 'is X worth trying', or to list options), which tells the agent when this tool fits. It does not explicitly route to siblings (e.g. get_way for full detail), though 'link to each full guide' implies the division of labor.

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