OunceScout

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating computation. The description adds useful context beyond the annotation — that pricing comes from live dealer prices and is the 'today's lowest' snapshot, implying results are time-sensitive. It says nothing about cost, latency, rate limits, or whether the calculation performs network fan-out.

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 with no wasted clauses, stating the calculation and its inputs and objective up front. It is slightly padded by branding ('OunceScout Smart Budget Stack Calculator'), but that does not impede comprehension.

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 should convey what comes back; it names the objective (optimal physical stack at lowest live dealer prices) but not the shape of the result — line items, quantities, per-item premiums, or totals. For a simple two-parameter read-only calculator this is adequate, though an agent cannot predict the response structure.

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%, with the strategy enum and budgetUsd both documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden and 3 is the baseline. The description adds only that budget is expressed in USD against live prices; it does not explain allocation behavior such as whether 'balanced' is fixed-ratio or optimized by premium.

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?

A specific verb + resource: it runs a budget stack calculator that returns an optimal bullion allocation for a USD budget using live dealer prices. That clearly separates it from siblings like get_live_spot_prices (prices only) and compare_product_dealers (price comparison), though the siblings are never named.

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 phrase 'for a target USD budget', so an agent can infer this is the planning/allocation tool rather than a lookup tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer the boundary from the description alone.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the data returned, including shipping policies, payment basis, and in-stock status, but it does not disclose freshness, rate limits, or output structure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core outcome. Every phrase contributes to defining what the tool returns.

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 appropriately enumerates the types of information returned. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only comparison tool, though it could mention output format or cardinality.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions slug or product ID but adds no additional semantics for the quantity parameter or formatting beyond what the schema provides.

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: get side-by-side dealer quotes for a bullion product by slug or product ID. It clearly defines the scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_verified_dealers or search_bullion_catalog.

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 when comparing dealer prices for a specific product, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description has a lower bar. It adds what the payload contains (four metals plus GSR, quoted in USD/troy ounce), but says nothing about refresh cadence, caching, staleness, or failure modes when a market feed is unavailable.

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 with no filler. Every clause carries information: verb, resource, the four symbols, units, and the extra GSR output.

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 does the job of naming the returned data and units, which is the key thing an agent needs to decide whether the response is usable. It stops short of describing the response shape (field names, timestamps, per-metal structure), a minor gap for a no-parameter read.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description could clarify. The mention of USD per troy ounce applies to the returned values, not inputs, so it adds no parameter meaning but costs nothing.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource (live spot prices), enumerates the exact metals (XAU, XAG, XPT, XPD) and the units (USD per troy ounce), plus the derived GSR. No sibling overlaps this domain, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 'live' qualifier implies usage for current rather than historical pricing, but the description never states when to use this versus the sibling catalog/calculation tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's marginal value is in disclosing that results include directory statuses and a specific featured dealer. It does not say how complete or current the directory is, but for a zero-parameter read that is a modest gap.

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 with no filler; the resource comes first and the supplementary contents follow. Every clause carries 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 parameters, no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, and no output schema, the description only needs to explain what comes back. It names the entity and two contents (statuses, featured dealer) but leaves the actual returned fields unspecified.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Nothing in the description contradicts or muddies the empty 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?

Specific verb plus resource ('List ... verified US bullion dealers') and it names the extra payload (directory statuses, Featured Dealer). The scope is unambiguous enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_live_spot_prices or search_bullion_catalog, though no sibling is called out by name.

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 or when-not-to-use statement, and the closest sibling (compare_product_dealers) also concerns dealers, yet no routing guidance is given. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'verified US bullion dealers' as a directory lookup.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying results include lowest verified dealer prices and multi-dealer offer counts. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or limits beyond what the schema covers.

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 well-formed sentence with zero wasted words. The core purpose and catalog scope are front-loaded, and the additional result-value context is packed efficiently into the same sentence.

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 usefully indicates that results include lowest verified dealer prices and multi-dealer offer counts. The input schema is fully documented and annotations cover the safety profile. It could still say more about result ordering or pagination, but it is broadly complete for a search 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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in detail. The description reinforces the catalog scope by mentioning metals and product formats, but adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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-plus-resource phrase: search and filter OunceScout's canonical bullion catalog. It names the metals and product formats covered, so the agent knows the catalog scope. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like compare_product_dealers, which keeps it from a 5.

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 by stating that the tool searches and filters the catalog, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or clarify when to prefer this over compare_product_dealers or get_live_spot_prices. Usage is therefore only implied rather than directed.

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