Evercraft Machine Commerce

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds valuable scope information: it returns public surfaces only and explicitly does not initiate payment or paid work, which is a meaningful behavioral boundary not present in the structured fields.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action and returned content are front-loaded, and the boundary caveat follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, returned surface types, and a behavioral boundary. Minor gaps remain around error/empty handling and pagination, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so public_id is already fully documented by the schema. The description reinforces its semantic ('one published Evercraft capability'), adding slight clarity about scope beyond the schema's wording, but does not introduce format or constraint details the schema lacks.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('public connection surfaces for one published Evercraft capability') and explicitly enumerates what those surfaces are (MCP, OpenAPI, A2A, website, docs URLs). The 'one published capability' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list/match tools without ambiguity.

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 purpose implies usage, and 'Does not initiate payment or paid work' sets a useful boundary condition. However, it never states when to call this versus list_evercraft_capabilities or match_evercraft_capability, so an agent must infer that this is a follow-up step after obtaining a public_id.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. 'Read-only and non-transactional' largely restates those hints, while 'public-safe' adds a small amount of context about what content is exposed. No disclosure of pagination or result size beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 zero padding and the purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is partly redundant with the annotations, which slightly dilutes the value density but does not harm readability.

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-required-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. It lacks any hint about what the returned directory looks like or how results are scoped, but with annotations carrying safety and the schema carrying parameters, no critical gap remains.

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 100%, and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with default, min, and max. The description adds no syntax, format, or interpretation beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current public-safe Evercraft capability directory'), and 'public-safe' adds a meaningful scope qualifier. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like match_evercraft_capability or get_evercraft_connection_options, leaving the agent to infer that this is the unfiltered enumeration tool.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling match/get tools. The only implicit signal is the generic verb 'list', which suggests enumeration, but neither prerequisites nor exclusions 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld=false, so safety basics are covered. The description adds a non-obvious negative boundary ('does not create checkout, payment, obligations, accounts, access, or paid work'), clarifying the output is recommendations only, not side effects. It doesn't disclose ranking behavior or return format, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Read-only' safety note and the negative-boundary list each earn their place by preventing misuse; no 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 2-param read-only match tool with a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and boundaries adequately. However, it leaves out what a 'match' returns (ranked results, scoring, limit default behavior beyond schema) and does not contrast with list_evercraft_capabilities, which would help an agent choose 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?

Schema coverage is 100% – both 'intent' and 'limit' are fully described in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides for these parameters.

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 a specific verb (match) and resource (published Evercraft capabilities) with the input ('user problem or goal') named explicitly. Siblings list_evercraft_capabilities and get_evercraft_connection_options describe different operations (listing catalog vs. connection options), so this tool's 'matching to a problem' purpose is distinguishable.

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 the use case (when you have a user problem/goal to route), but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. list_evercraft_capabilities (browse vs. match) or when not to use it. No alternatives are named despite two clear sibling candidates.

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