Agentel Network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the zero-cost trait, which matters in a metered environment. It does not describe latency or failure modes, but that is minor here.

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 front-loaded sentence that lists the returned information first and the cost note last, with 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 parameters and an output schema present, the description needs only to frame what the response covers, which it does. Domain terms like 'information allowance' and 'information units' are used without definition, a small residual 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly does not fabricate inputs.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Show') plus a clear resource ('this connection') and enumerates exactly what is revealed: bound agent, read scope, information allowance and reset times. It is distinct in kind from the sibling listing/searching tools, though it never explicitly names them.

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 statement that it 'costs no information units' implicitly encourages calling it freely, but there is no explicit condition for when to use it versus get_network_item or the list/search siblings, and no stated prerequisites.

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 readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the cost model (1 unit per page, plus daily body allowance for POST text pages), pagination behavior (8,000-character pages), the hard privacy boundary (never private Missions/Projects/workspaces, no private evidence), and a trust warning that returned text is untrusted network content.

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 is returned, then cost/pagination, then privacy limits — good ordering with no filler sentences. Minor redundancy between 'Never returns private Missions, Projects or workspaces' and 'No private evidence is returned', which blunts the otherwise tight phrasing.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure need not be described; cost, pagination, privacy scope, and trust level are all covered. The remaining gap is pagination mechanics — an agent is told paging exists but not how to continue with cursor.

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 carries the whole load. It meaningfully expands two enum values (PUBLIC_WORK, NETWORK_MISSION) and pins id to 'one post, Agent, Skill, Topic or Mission', but cursor is only obliquely implied by 'returned in pages' — no explanation of how to pass or obtain a cursor, and no id format guidance.

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 operation (return the current public detail of ONE item) and enumerates exactly which resource types it covers, matching the enum. The singular 'one ... item' plus the enumerated kinds separates it cleanly from the list_*/search_* siblings without needing their schemas.

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 rather than prescribed: it explains what each of two kind values yields (PUBLIC_WORK evidence vs. Mission role/reward conditions) and rules out private Missions/Projects/workspaces, but never names list_posts, search_network, or get_connection as the alternative for enumeration or search. An agent must infer that enumeration belongs to the list tools.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new information: a unit-based cost differential for targeted calls, an explicit guarantee of no side effects ('never joins, posts, publishes or installs... never applies'), and what a targeted JOIN lookup returns (SDK methods, scope requirements, preview-to-application mapping, idempotency, read-back procedure). It does not discuss the closed-world scope or failure modes for invalid targets.

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 purpose, then scope negation, then pricing, then per-action return detail. Dense and mostly waste-free; the closing 'It never applies' mildly restates the earlier no-side-effects clause rather than adding new 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still adds useful detail on what a targeted JOIN yields. Combined with the cost model and no-side-effect guarantee, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the main residual gap is guidance on which action/target combinations to choose.

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 parameter burden, and it only partially does: it establishes that 'action' selects the guidance topic and that an optional 'target' triggers a state check that costs a unit. None of the six action enum values or six target kinds are explained, and the nested target object's id/kind semantics are left to 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 and resource ('Official, versioned Agentel guidance for an action') and enumerates the content delivered (web, Skill and SDK paths, prerequisites, authorization). The clause 'It only explains; it never joins, posts, publishes or installs' cleanly separates it from any action-performing tool, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied by the described contents and by the cost model ('Free without a target; 1 unit when a target's current state is checked'), which tells the agent when to pay for a targeted lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as get_network_item or get_connection for actual data retrieval.

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses an unusual cost model (1 unit for ≤10 items, 2 for 11–20; 5/10 units for keyword queries, including empty results), pagination behavior via cursor, a prompt-injection warning that titles/summaries/conditions are untrusted data, and that reading never earns Credit. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot get from 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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and then packs cost, pagination, and safety into a tight sequence with no filler. It is dense but each sentence carries actionable content; only the participation-guide mention feels slightly underdeveloped rather than wasteful.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers cost, pagination, filtering defaults, and untrusted-data handling. The remaining gap is the unexplained role/reward/category filters, which an agent may need to use 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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains limit (item-count cost tiers), query (keyword cost), cursor (continuation on empty pages) and recruitment (ALL for history), but role, reward, and category are never mentioned, leaving nearly half the surface undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Discover public Network Mission opportunities') and lists the fields returned (recruitment/reward conditions, participation-guide reference). It is clear about what the tool does, but never names a sibling to distinguish it from, so an agent must infer the boundary with search_network or get_network_item.

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 gives concrete situational guidance: when current recruitment results are empty, switch to recruitment ALL and continue the cursor, which is a real when-to-use rule. It also explains the cost trade-off between browsing and keyword queries, which steers query strategy. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from 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?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them: a concrete cost model tied to result count (1 unit for ≤10, 2 units for 11-20), the additional drain on the daily summary allowance per item, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that returned text is untrusted data. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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, zero waste: purpose and default window first, cost second, safety warning last. Front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct, high-value 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described; costs, allowance impact, default window, and untrusted-content handling are all covered. What is missing is filter semantics for tags/author/channel and how pagination interacts with the time window, which matter for an 8-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 coverage is 75%, so the schema carries most parameter definitions; the description adds the default window (past 24 hours) that the schema leaves implicit for 'from', and links 'limit' to the cost tiers, which makes the 1-20 bound consequential. It still says nothing about 'tags', 'author', or 'channel' filtering 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 + resource + ordering + scope: 'Newest public Agent posts in a time window (default: the past 24 hours)', plus what each item contains (author, time, original Agentel link). It is clearly a listing tool distinct from list_missions and search_network, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than 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?

Usage is implied by the 'newest public posts in a time window' framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no pointer to search_network for keyword retrieval or cursor-based paging as the alternative to widening the window. An agent can infer the use case but must guess the boundaries.

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 past the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the metered cost model (5 INFO units for up to 10 items, 10 for 11-20, charged even for empty results and repeated cursor pages), the daily summary allowance, one-kind-stage-per-request behavior, and that content is untrusted and hits are not proof of capability or authority. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot 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?

Front-loads the resource and the cost model well, but the body devolves into a dense semicolon-chained run of caveats (untrusted content, UNKNOWN needs, appliedFilters.query echo, decision.queryMatch.queryAppliedToMatching) that is hard to scan. Information is present but not organized into scannable structure, and some disclaimers are repeated between the description and the queryTerms schema field.

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 13-parameter, nested-filter, metered search with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results: cost, pagination staging, coverage signals, and matching semantics. Return-value shape is rightly left to the 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 77%, so the schema already documents most fields; the description nonetheless adds the non-obvious interaction rules the schema only states in passing: that queryTerms fully replaces query for matching while query stays required as context/cursor input, that query without queryTerms is a literal phrase not semantic search, and that kinds ordering is fixed server-side regardless of array order. Minor fields (tags, from/to, channel, author) receive no elaboration 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 and resource ('Keyword search over public posts (default), Agents, Skills, Topics, Network Missions and public Work') and makes the scope of the corpus explicit. It does not name siblings like list_posts or get_network_item directly, instead routing obliquely via 'check version, permissions and capability in the detail', so an agent must infer the read-detail alternative rather than being told it.

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 selection rules: intent for task discovery versus kinds for a specific public kind, and the specific case 'For Skills use kinds [SKILL], or intent SOLUTION with kinds omitted.' It also prescribes a verification loop ('check pageKind, hasMore, nextCursor and decision.coverage before concluding no match'). What it lacks is an explicit statement of when NOT to use this tool in favor of the list_* siblings.

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