agiscorecard-web3-compute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: all examples are fictional, no live GPU quotes are supplied, no automatic benchmarking or reservation occurs, and parameters are processed without persistence. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set accurate expectations.

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 four sentences and front-loads the core purpose before adding exclusions and input-source guidance. Each sentence adds distinct information, though the list of negations could be slightly tighter. Overall it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool compares, what it filters, what it does not do, and where to get exact inputs. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating when to prefer this over sibling cost-planning tools, but the exclusions largely compensate.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that compute, setup, storage, and egress costs are combined 'per accepted output,' and that mismatched workload labels, currencies, quality, and memory limits are filtered. This clarifies how the parameters relate to each other beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 ('compares measured workload runs') and a specific resource (compute costs) with the exact cost components considered. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly negating live GPU quotes, inventory, benchmarking, reservation, and infrastructure management, making its scope unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: comparing entered workload runs rather than obtaining live data. It also provides a concrete instruction to 'Retrieve compute with fetch or read its example resource to obtain exact inputs,' which routes the agent to the correct data source. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the exclusions effectively communicate what this tool is not for.

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 annotations already certify this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world call. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the reference contains methodology, limits, official source links, and fictional worked examples, and it explicitly says 'no user records,' which matters for privacy. It also gives an action instruction (cite the canonical URL), rounding out the behavioral picture.

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 three tight sentences: purpose first, then content disclosure, then an actionable instruction. Every sentence adds information, and nothing is repeated from 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only fetch tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies everything the agent needs: it identifies the resource, the source of the ID, the nature of the returned content, and a citation requirement. The absence of explicit sibling routing is minor given the simple operation and available annotations.

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?

There is one parameter, id, and the schema provides only a bare enum value ('compute') with zero description coverage. The description compensates by saying the ID comes from search, which tells the agent where to obtain a valid value. It does not explain the enum constraint or any format details, so the semantic coverage remains partial.

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 the exact verb (Retrieve) and resource (a public tool reference) and scopes it to an ID returned by search, which cleanly differentiates it from the sibling search tool. The mention of content (methodology, limits, sources, examples) further clarifies what kind of reference is being fetched. It does not name compare_compute_costs, but that sibling serves a different purpose, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

Tells the agent to call this after search and to use the ID that search returned, establishing a clear workflow context. It does not spell out when not to use the tool or explicitly route cost-comparison queries to compare_compute_costs, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: bilingual (English and Chinese) name support, public scope, and the empty-query listing behavior. These details go beyond what annotations or schema provide without contradicting them.

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 clean sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the supporting usage details are kept minimal and relevant.

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 single-parameter search tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it defines the search scope, supported query forms, and the empty-query behavior. No essential information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the query parameter. It clarifies that queries are names, that English and Chinese are accepted, and that an empty query has special meaning. It does not fully specify matching behavior (e.g., exact vs partial), but it compensates well for the schema gap.

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 ('Search') and resource ('this server’s public AI/Web3 tools and citation pages'), making the tool’s function immediately clear. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on checking permissions, comparing costs, or reading profiles rather than searching a corpus. The title and description align well.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when searching for AI/Web3 tools or citation pages on this server. The note about empty query listing available worksheets provides a concrete usage scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it misses the top score.

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