Evercraft Deck Capital Fit

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

With annotations already marking non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful side-effect context: it independently verifies Polar payment and can execute paid research. It does not detail costs or the full external-call behavior, but 'bounded' plus the idempotent and destructive hints cover the main risk profile.

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 dense sentence and every phrase contributes—it front-loads the primary read action and packs the payment verification and research trigger into the rest. It is not bloated, though the layered clauses could be easier to parse if split into two sentences.

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 tool with no output schema, the description still leaves gaps: it does not explain what the returned status looks like, where the case_token comes from, or how this tool fits into the offer/checkout flow. The authorization condition helps, but an agent could not confidently predict the response or the full workflow.

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 with 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It references a 'machine-commerce token' that is likely the case_token and clarifies its authorization role, but it never explicitly binds it to the parameter or explains its origin or format.

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 concrete actions—read the case state, verify Polar payment, run bounded paid research—so it is not a tautology. It is clear about the resource, but it never explicitly contrasts with siblings get_capital_fit_offer and prepare_capital_fit_checkout, so it does not earn 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 conditional clause gives a clear precondition: run the paid research only when the machine-commerce token and verified payment authorize it. However, it does not say when to prefer this status/payment tool over the offer or checkout siblings, or when not to call 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?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful financial side-effect guarantees: 'Creates no charge and does not make a financing decision.' This goes beyond what the annotations express and is directly relevant to an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying side-effect statements are concise 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the resource and explicitly disclaims charge and financing decisions. It could mention what the returned offer contains, but that is not essential for invoking it correctly.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters; it correctly focuses on the resource being read.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('the current $49 bounded capital-research offer'). It clearly separates this from the siblings by focusing on reading an offer rather than checking status or preparing checkout.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is a safe read-only call that creates no charge and makes no financing decision, so the agent knows when it can be invoked without side effects. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X,' but the context is unambiguous for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), not idempotent, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds concrete behavioral details: it creates a case and secures a checkout, and explicitly warns that checkout creation is not payment proof. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and limitations. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the precondition, and zero filler. Every clause adds value: the action, the resource, and the payment-proof caveat. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no schema descriptions), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what the returned checkout looks like, how parameters map to the case, or any constraints beyond the payment precondition. An agent would struggle to correctly populate fields without additional context.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not. With 15 parameters, none are described in the description beyond the implicit requirement that user_confirmed_payment must be true. The description gives no meaning to company_name, contact_email, capital_purpose, or any optional fields. This is a significant 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 ('create') and resource ('bounded capital-research case and secure Polar checkout'), and clarifies the critical precondition ('After the human explicitly agrees to pay $49'). It clearly differentiates from sibling read-only tools (get_capital_case_status, get_capital_fit_offer) by being a write operation. The caveat 'Checkout creation is not payment proof' adds useful semantic distinction.

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 a clear usage context: only after explicit human agreement to pay. It implies this is the tool to create a checkout, contrasting with the sibling status/offer tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the precondition and action are sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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