agent-verified-relay

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency (replay returns original receipt and cached result, downstream never double-called) and failure handling (failures are receipted evidence, not silence). It also explains the notarization process. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but these are less critical than the stated guarantees.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by idempotency and failure behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior, idempotency, and failure semantics. An output schema exists, so return values are likely documented. It could mention how to reference services or handle timeouts, but it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 needed to compensate. It only explains call_id (idempotent on call_id) and leaves service_id, tool, arguments, timeout_s, request_id, and payment_ref to the schema, which has no descriptions. This is a significant gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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 relays a tools/call to an MCP service and notarizes the exchange with hashes into a tamper-evident receipt chain. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_receipt and verify_receipts by being the invocation tool that also records evidence.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a verified, notarized call to a service with idempotency and failure receipting. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context strongly implies this is the go-to for making service calls that need receipts.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'self-description,' which does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, whether it has side effects, or any constraints. No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the bare concept.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The phrase 'Fleet-standard self-description' is a fragment that conveys almost no useful information. Every word does not earn its place because the phrase is vague and lacks substance.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too minimal to be considered complete. It does not explain what 'self-description' means, how the output is structured, or when to invoke the tool. The presence of the output schema helps, but the description itself leaves critical context unresolved, especially given the zero annotations and no usage guidance.

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 the baseline for this dimension is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed since the input schema is empty and coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not hinder parameter understanding.

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 'Fleet-standard self-description' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'describe_agent'; it restates the concept without specifying what the self-description contains or what action is performed. The modifier 'Fleet-standard' adds branding but not functional clarity, making it insufficiently distinct from the name itself.

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. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and none of the sibling tools are referenced. This is a complete absence of usage 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, error behavior, or what happens if the id is not found. Minimal disclosure leaves the agent with uncertainty.

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 of eight words, front-loaded with the action and target. It contains no filler or redundant information and is appropriately sized for a simple fetch-by-id tool.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks context about error handling or prerequisites for the id, making it only minimally complete. The output schema presumably covers return values, so that is not a 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 schema has one required parameter (receipt_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's 'by id' adds only that the parameter is an identifier, but does not explain its format, origin, or any constraints. This offers minimal value beyond the schema's property title.

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 the action verb 'Fetch' with a specific resource ('single delivery receipt') and scope ('by id'), clearly indicating the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_receipts by emphasizing 'single' and 'fetch' versus verification, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 such as verify_receipts. The only implied context is that it is used when a receipt id is available, but no exclusions or alternative scenarios are described.

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 must convey behavioral safety. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of call/fee counters indicates output content. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations beyond 'registered'.

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, focused sentence conveys the essential information without waste. It is appropriately succinct for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The core purpose and output scope are stated, and the schema covers return 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not elaborate. The schema is trivially covered, and the description's mention of counters provides context for expected output rather than input.

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 'List registered services with call/fee counters' clearly states a specific action (list) on a specific resource (registered services) and adds output context (counters). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like service_stats, but the verb and scope make the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as service_stats or register_service. The description simply states what it does without indicating appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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 responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does so effectively by stating that it is idempotent on (url, provider), returns a content-addressed service_id, and explains the fee_minor parameter. It doesn't cover authentication, rate limits, or failure modes, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then adds constraints, return information, idempotency, and parameter detail in a compact, well-structured manner.

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?

The description is largely complete for a registration tool, covering purpose, key constraints, idempotency, return value, and fee semantics. The presence of an output schema likely covers return structure. However, several parameters (request_id, payment_ref, description) are left ambiguous, and the description does not mention any prerequisites or side effects beyond idempotency.

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 explicitly defines fee_minor ('per-verified-call fee in cents') and clarifies the identity role of url and provider through the idempotency note. However, request_id, description, and payment_ref remain unexplained, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 function: 'Register a third-party MCP server... under Viridis Verified.' It includes a specific verb (register), the resource (third-party MCP server), and contextual constraints (https, public FQDN only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_services or call_verified, which serve different purposes.

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 (registering an MCP server) and even specifies constraints (https, public FQDN only). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full alternatives/exclusion 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by enumerating output metrics, but it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or error behaviors. The behavior is implied rather than explicitly disclosed.

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 noun phrase, with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key output metrics and scope, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple one-parameter read-only tool, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, without annotations, it leaves gaps around when to use the tool, prerequisites, and behavioral details. It is not incomplete enough to be confusing, but it lacks context that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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. The phrase 'for one service' hints that service_id is the identifier for the service whose stats are returned, but it does not explain the parameter's format, valid values, or any additional context. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 specifies the exact data returned (call counts, error counts, accrued fees) and scopes it to 'one service', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_services or get_receipt. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'gets' or 'returns', so it is a noun phrase rather than a full action statement.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., service must exist) or contrast with sibling tools like list_services. The phrase 'for one service' implies it requires a service_id, but there is no explicit usage context.

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 the behavioral burden. It mentions 'recompute' (suggesting a read-only verification) and explicitly states 'Any party can audit,' which implies no special permissions. However, it does not disclose potential costs, rate limits, or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 action, zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose and accessibility without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional-context parameter, output schema provided). The description covers purpose, audience, and scope ('full receipt hash chain and fee ledger'). It could mention how it relates to get_receipt, but given the output schema exists, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly define 'service_id,' but 'a service's full receipt hash chain' indicates the parameter identifies which service to verify. With only one parameter, the meaning is inferable, though not enriched beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Recompute a service's full receipt hash chain and fee ledger.' It uses a specific verb ('recompute') and names the exact resource ('receipt hash chain and fee ledger'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_receipt (which likely fetches a receipt) and register_service.

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 phrase 'Any party can audit Viridis Verified from receipts alone' provides clear context that this is an auditing tool usable by anyone, implying it is appropriate for verification purposes. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is strong enough.

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