KlearFlow Relay

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 material context not in the annotations: the call costs $0.005 via x402 Base USDC, which an agent must know before invoking. It does not describe latency, failure modes, or whether the estimate is model-derived beyond the schema's 'model default' note.

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 compact sentences, with the decision context front-loaded before the output list and the cost note last. Each sentence earns its place; the return-value sentence is partly redundant given the output schema but still aids selection.

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 read-only scoring tool with a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and complete safety annotations, the only missing pieces an agent would need are usage timing and invocation cost — both are present. Nothing required to call it correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including enum explanations and defaults, so the schema carries all parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameter formats, units, or how inputs like interestLevel or estimatedRecoveryRate influence the output. Baseline 3 applies when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 concrete diagnostic purpose (assessing recoverable missed-call / follow-up revenue leakage) and lists the concrete outputs (score, estimated monthly leak, recoverable revenue, next action). It never names the sibling recover_revenue explicitly, but 'use this first' implicitly positions it as the assessment step preceding recovery. Clear enough to select on, though not a textbook sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use this first when deciding whether a business has recoverable missed-call or follow-up revenue leakage.' It also implies the boundary with recover_revenue by being the decision step. No explicit when-not clause or named alternative, so it falls short of 5.

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 the description reinforces this in domain terms: 'KlearFlow sends no external message', which is genuinely non-obvious for a tool named recover_revenue. It also discloses a real invocation constraint the annotations cannot express — a $0.05 charge settled via x402 Base USDC — plus that the output is a decision packet rather than a sent message.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: eligibility condition, output/side-effect guarantee, and cost. The most important routing constraint is front-loaded and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 10-parameter, fully documented schema with an output schema present, the description only needs to supply what structured fields cannot: timing eligibility, absence of external side effects, and the paid invocation cost. All three are covered, so an agent has everything required to select and call it.

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%, including enum values and per-parameter guidance, so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format, default, or interaction details beyond implying that eventType and minutesSinceEvent anchor the recovery decision.

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 the trigger and the output concretely: given a revenue-loss event that already occurred, it returns a prioritized recovery action packet. That is a specific behavior an agent can act on. It does not name or contrast the sibling tools (inspect_revenue_opportunity, route_task), so the agent must infer the boundary from the 'already happened' phrasing.

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 opening clause gives a clear usage condition: call this only after a specific revenue-loss event has occurred. This implicitly excludes pre-event inspection, which is the sibling's domain. However, no alternative tool is named explicitly and no exclusion is spelled out, so routing still requires inference.

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, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new operational facts: routing has a real cost ($0.005 via x402 Base USDC) and the tool stops short of execution. It does not explain why idempotentHint=false (e.g. live ranking can shift between calls), which would have been the last useful piece.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the usage trigger front-loaded and the cost/scope caveats following. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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 unnecessary. The description supplies the remaining decision-relevant context: when to call it, that it is discovery-only, and that it costs money — everything an agent needs before invoking.

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% across all five parameters, including the meaning of task, limit, maxPriceUsd, excludeHosts, and preferPaidVerified, so the schema carries this dimension. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond it, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 verb pair and resource ("discover and rank live x402 providers for a task") and immediately bounds the scope with "KlearFlow does not execute the selected provider." That scope negation cleanly separates it from any execution/spend tool an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 states an explicit trigger condition: use this "before choosing downstream spend" when the caller needs live provider discovery. It does not name a when-not case or point to an alternative tool, but the trigger is clear and actionable.

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