agent-surety

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

The description notes idempotency, a key behavioral trait, and explains the funding_ref parameter's role. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other important behaviors such as side effects, authorization requirements, or error scenarios. More detail would improve transparency.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core action, and uses no superfluous words. Every sentence provides value, making it highly efficient for quick 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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description is not required to explain return values. However, it omits critical context such as the bond's state machine, preconditions (e.g., bond must be posted), and potential errors. The description is functional but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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 description adds meaning to funding_ref ('links the payment rail transaction'), compensating for the 0% schema coverage. However, bond_id remains unexplained beyond its presence in the schema. While partial, the added context helps but not fully.

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 action 'Mark a POSTED bond ACTIVE', specifying the verb and the resource. The mention of 'POSTED' distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_bond or release_bond, establishing its specific role in the bond lifecycle.

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 context is implied by describing the target state ('POSTED bond'), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., post_bond, release_bond). No prerequisites or exclusions are provided, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 full burden. It states 'current record' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior on missing bonds. More detail is needed for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks guidance and behavioral transparency, making it minimally complete for a single-parameter tool with siblings.

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% with one required parameter (bond_id). The description does not explain the parameter beyond implication from context. For a low-coverage schema, the description should add format or example, but it does not.

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 it returns the current record of a bond, including state, balances, claims, and audit head. This specific verb and resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bonds (list all) and post_bond (create).

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 use for retrieving the current status of a single bond, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect profile, permissions, or context limitations. For a zero-parameter introspection tool, the risk is low, so a middle score is appropriate.

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?

At six words, the description is extremely concise and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, and the main action and target are 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides the essential information about what the tool returns. It is somewhat vague about the exact meaning of 'capabilities' and 'input contract', but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 there is no parameter documentation to provide. The description correctly avoids adding parameter details; the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 identifies the resource as 'capabilities and input contract', clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_agent or list_agents, so it falls short of 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 alternatives such as get_agent or list_agents. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it should be selected.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint (payout only after arbitration ruling) and the prerequisite (active bond). It does not mention side effects or permission requirements, which is acceptable for a claim-filing 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage on parameters, leaving a significant completeness gap. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description adequately addresses purpose and constraints.

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%, meaning the parameters have no descriptions. The tool description does not explain any parameter meaning (e.g., format of 'bond_id', what 'claimant' refers to, or units of 'amount_minor'), leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone, which may be ambiguous.

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 specific verb ('File') and resource ('a claim against an ACTIVE bond'), clearly defining the tool's function. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'slash_bond' by noting the arbitration ruling condition.

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 provides explicit context: claims only pay out upon arbitration ruling, and the bond must be active. It references 'slash_bond' for more information, offering guidance on when to use this vs. an alternative tool, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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. It states 'list' implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, limits, or any side effects. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and the optional filter. No extraneous words; every part is necessary.

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 only one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on default behavior, sorting, scope (e.g., user-specific vs all bonds), and pagination. It does not leverage the existence of an output schema to reduce needed detail.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the valid state values (POSTED, ACTIVE, RELEASED, EXHAUSTED) which are not in the schema (no enum). However, it does not explain what each state means or any parameter formatting details.

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 bonds and can be filtered by state, listing the valid values. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bonds'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like bond_status, but the purpose is still clear.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., bond_status for a single bond). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or 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?

With no annotations, the description partially fulfills behavioral disclosure: it mentions the bond fee (2% default) is computed and frozen at post. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires authorization, which are important for a post action.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by parameter details and fee behavior. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (so return values may be documented externally), the description explains purpose, two key parameters, and fee behavior. However, it omits explanation of the 'coverage' and 'currency' defaults, what 'principal_agent' is, and any prerequisites (e.g., agent must exist), leaving some gaps.

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 must compensate. It explains 'principal' (positive integer in minor units) and 'expires_at' (ISO-8601 coverage window end), adding meaning beyond the schema. But it does not explain 'coverage', 'currency', or 'principal_agent', leaving those ambiguous.

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's purpose: 'Post a surety bond behind an agent's promises.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like price_bond or release_bond which involve other bond 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 implies usage by explaining parameter meanings and bond fee computation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like price_bond or activate_bond, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It explains the deterministic integer-only model, how inputs affect the quote, and that the returned quote_hash enables independent verification. It also explicitly states the tool is pure and never mutates state. No contradictions.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first explains the core action and influencing factors, second adds technical and behavioral context. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence provides value.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the model, hash verification, and side-effect guarantee. It lacks discussion of error conditions or edge cases, but for a pricing tool this is sufficient. The output schema likely covers return fields.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that attestations, deliveries, completed bonds lower the rate, and slashes raise or decline. However, it does not mention all parameters (e.g., coverage_minor, duration_days, slashed_minor) or their roles beyond the stated effects, leaving gaps.

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 specific verbs ('Underwrite', 'deterministic actuarial premium quote') and clearly identifies the resource (surety bond). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it is a pure pricing function that never mutates bond state.

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 when to use this tool (before committing to a bond) by mentioning 'deterministic quote' and 'never mutates bond state', but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it. Context from sibling names like 'post_bond' and 'activate_bond' helps but is not stated.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the refusal condition (open claims blocking release) but omits other behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on success. This is adequate but incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and condition with no wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema and sibling tools, the description fails to explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., bond must be active), or state transitions. The tool's context is only partially addressed.

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 to the 'bond_id' parameter beyond the schema's title. The agent has no guidance on what 'bond_id' refers to or its format, making it difficult to invoke correctly.

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 action ('Release the remaining stake'), the resource ('to the principal'), and the condition ('after the coverage window elapses'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'file_claim' by noting it is refused while claims are open.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (after coverage window, no open claims) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'slash_bond' or 'verify_audit', leaving some implicit differentiation.

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 carries full burden. It discloses that payout caps at bond balance, over-claims exhaust the bond, and rulings are single-use. These are key side effects, though it could mention if the tool is destructive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Each sentence provides critical context without being verbose.

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 complexity of arbitration and bonds, the description covers the flow and constraints adequately. It has an output schema (not shown), so return values are not needed. Could mention bond must be active, but not essential.

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 description must compensate. It explains ruling_case_id and ruling_hash as 'ruling's case id + content hash', but does not clarify bond_id, claim_id, or upheld. Only 2 of 5 parameters are meaningfully described.

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 verb 'Execute' and the resource 'arbitration ruling against a claim', distinguishing it from sibling tools like activate_bond or file_claim. It specifies the required inputs (bond_id, claim_id, ruling_case_id, ruling_hash) and constraints.

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 explains when to use: after an arbitration ruling, requiring case id and content hash. It also states exclusions ('no ruling, no slash') and idempotency ('a given ruling pays at most once'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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?

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'validate,' omitting details on side effects, error handling, or what the validation entails (e.g., does it check signatures? Is it read-only?).

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 sentence and succinct, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It front-loads the core purpose but lacks structure or additional details.

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?

Despite having an output schema (unknown content) and only one parameter, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any prerequisites (e.g., bond must exist). The context is inadequate for reliable agent usage.

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 only parameter 'bond_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not clarify its format, role, or constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 action ('validate') and the specific resource ('tamper-evident audit hash chain for a bond'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like activate_bond or bond_status.

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. It does not mention preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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