Merchant Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context like 'free' and 'public HTTPS' constraints but does not elaborate on rate limits, output formatting, or any edge-case behaviors. This meets the baseline for annotation-backed tools but doesn't go beyond.

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 consists of two sentences, front-loaded with the core function ('Return a free readiness score and pass/fail checks') followed by a concise pointer to the alternative. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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, read-only check tool, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, scope, and a direct alternative. Since there is no output schema, the description's mention of 'readiness score and pass/fail checks' gives a reasonable summary, though it could be more explicit about the score's range or format. Still, given the tool's simplicity, this 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for 'merchant_url' as 'Public HTTPS merchant URL to check.' The description's phrase 'one public HTTPS merchant origin' reinforces but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a free readiness score and pass/fail checks for one public HTTPS merchant origin.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing users to 'inspect_merchant for detailed resource evidence,' making this tool's scope unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for a readiness score and pass/fail checks) and names the alternative 'inspect_merchant' for detailed evidence. This provides clear guidance on tool selection, even though it does not mention 'get_service_info' — the primary decision between the two similar sibling tools is addressed.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read-only 'Describe' action. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as the specific aspects covered (service, price, inspection checks). No contradictions, but no additional safety or permission details.

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, direct sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context, listing key aspects of the service. However, terms like 'Merchant Context service' and 'inspection checks' could be further clarified, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 input schema is empty with 0 parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'Describe' as a specific verb targeting the Merchant Context service, explicitly listing service, price, and inspection checks. This clearly states the tool's function, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like check_merchant or inspect_merchant, so not 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. It neither mentions alternatives nor specifies scenarios, leaving the agent without usage context. This warrants a low score.

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 read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the constraint of 'public HTTPS' and the scope of 'one' origin, which informs the agent about the tool's limitations.

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 that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple two-parameter tool with rich annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is adequate. It clearly states what the tool inspects and why, though it does not detail return behavior or output structure, which is not strictly necessary here.

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 input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (merchant_url and agent_id), totaling 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 clearly specifies the action ('Inspect'), the resource ('one public HTTPS merchant origin'), and the purpose ('for agent discovery and commerce files'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_merchant' and 'get_service_info' by focusing on merchant origin inspection.

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 inspecting merchant origins, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'check_merchant' or 'get_service_info'. It lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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