Record high-intent demand for a capability an agent wants fulfilled. Supplier contact and spending are not enabled yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| currency | No | ||
| deadline | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| authority | No | get_quotes | |
| maxBudget | No | ||
| telemetry | No | aggregate_only | |
| categoryHint | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions that supplier contact and spending are not enabled yet, which is a useful limitation, but it does not detail write behavior, authentication, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and free of redundant information. It achieves clarity with minimal words.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only two sentences. It lacks details on return values, parameter relationships, and mandate lifecycle, making it under-specified for a tool of 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explicit parameter explanations. It only implies 'task' as the capability but fails to clarify currency, deadline, authority, maxBudget, telemetry, and other fields, leaving users to infer from names alone.
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 tool records high-intent demand, using a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('capability'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on demand capture rather than outcome reporting or resolving.
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 for high-intent demand with a clear context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. However, the action is distinct from siblings, providing clear contextual differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct function: resolve performs the search/validation, submit_mandate records intent for future fulfillment, and report_outcome provides feedback on resolver performance. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose.
Two tools follow the verb_noun pattern (report_outcome, submit_mandate), while 'resolve' is a lone verb. All names use lowercase and underscores, so the style is consistent, but the missing noun in 'resolve' is a minor deviation.
Three tools is slightly on the lean side for a service that claims to handle real-world capability requests, but the set covers the core actions of resolve, submit, and report. It is within the reasonable range and each tool earns its place.
The tools form a coherent loop for capability resolution and feedback. A minor gap is the lack of a way to query outstanding mandates or inspect historical outcomes, but the core workflow appears complete for its stated purpose.