twothumbs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only list operation, which is non-destructive, but does not elaborate on output format or any side effects. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words or redundant information. It fully conveys the essential purpose in an efficient manner.

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 very simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description clearly states what is listed, which is largely sufficient. It could benefit from a hint about the return structure, but given the simplicity, it is nearly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete by default. The description adds no parameter details but none are needed, giving the baseline of 4 for empty parameter sets.

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 lists configured surfaces and target URLs, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redeem_code and run_verdict, which perform different actions.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It merely states the function without context or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it redeems a promotional code, with no mention of side effects (e.g., code consumption), idempotency, error conditions, or authorization requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation type 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?

The description is a single concise sentence, containing no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable but lacks important contextual information such as what the tool returns exactly (the API key), how errors are surfaced, or any caveats about code validity. It does not fully specify the complete behavior for an AI agent.

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 only parameter is 'code'. The description adds meaning by clarifying that it is a 'promotional code', which helps the agent understand the parameter's role. However, it does not provide additional format details or source context beyond the schema 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 description uses a specific verb ('Redeem') and identifies the resource ('a promotional code') and the outcome ('for a new API key'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools list_surfaces and run_verdict, which perform different operations.

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 context (when you have a promotional code) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no direct guidance about when not to use it.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose side effects, authentication, rate limits, or what 'full-cycle' entails. The single sentence offers no such behavioral context, leaving the agent completely uninformed about the tool's execution traits.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A one-sentence description that fails to convey essential information does not earn credit for brevity.

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 4 parameters, an enum, and no output schema, the description should provide substantial context. Instead, it offers almost nothing, making the tool impossible to invoke correctly based on the given information.

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 adds no meaning for parameters like surface, register, or max_pages. Even the required url parameter is not explained beyond its URI format in 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 'Run a full-cycle web verdict' uses a verb and a resource, but 'web verdict' is vague jargon. It essentially restates the tool name without defining what a verdict is or what the tool outputs, making it barely more informative than a tautology.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_surfaces or redeem_code. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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