FAIE

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the valuable 'Creates no charge' billing guarantee and 'current' freshness qualifier, going slightly beyond the structured fields. No contradictions 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the no-charge clarification. There is zero waste and every phrase 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the exact data returned and assures no side effects. It could have briefly mentioned the sibling alternative for order status, but that omission does not impair successful invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. Per calibration, this is a solid baseline score with no gaps to penalize.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('current fixed FAIE Signal Brief and Proof Sprint offers'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. The named offer types distinctively set it apart from sibling tools like get_faie_order_status and prepare_faie_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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving current offers, but it never explicitly contrasts it with the sibling tools (e.g., 'use get_faie_order_status for order status'). The safety note 'Creates no charge' hints at when it's appropriate, but no direct usage guidance or 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?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, the description adds useful behavioral context: it independently verifies Stripe payment and keeps research human-review controlled. There is no contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 carry the operation, the payment verification condition, and the human-review constraint without repetition or boilerplate. The most important information is 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 simple read-only status tool, the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint are present, and the annotations cover safety characteristics. However, parameter semantics, possible status values, and return format are omitted even though there is no output schema to fill 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never explains lead_key, how to obtain it, or its relationship to the order/checkout session. The parameter name and length constraints are present in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the missing semantic meaning.

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 a specific action ('Read') on a specific resource ('commercial request state') and adds a distinct capability ('independently verify Stripe payment'). This clearly separates the tool from get_faie_offers and prepare_faie_checkout, though it does not explicitly mention 'mission queue status' or name the sibling 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?

The phrase 'when a checkout session exists' gives a conditional context for the payment-verification behavior, and 'Research remains human-review controlled' implies a state nuance. However, the description never states when to choose this tool over get_faie_offers or prepare_faie_checkout, so usage must be inferred.

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 only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the critical behavioral boundary: 'Verified payment queues research for human-controlled execution and review; it does not authorize consequential action.' This tells the agent that the tool is a controlled side-effect action rather than a green light for execution, which is high-value safety context the annotations cannot convey. It does not mention other side effects (e.g., confirmation emails or stored session records), but the most consequential behavior is 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the trigger condition before the action, and the second adds the essential behavioral boundary. Every clause earns its place, and the structure reads naturally for an agent skimming for when-to-call and what-happens.

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 conveys the workflow state (human agreed, payment verified), the scope (bounded offers), and the safety boundary (queues research, no consequential action), which covers the most important calling context. However, with no output schema and 10 parameters, it never hints at what the tool returns or what the caller should do next after 'preparing' the checkout, leaving a meaningful gap for a payment-related mutation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it adds real meaning for the two most important parameters: 'bounded FAIE Signal Brief or Proof Sprint' maps to the offer_key enum, and 'human explicitly agrees to pay' explains the user_confirmed_payment const:true requirement. However, eight of ten parameters (email, geography, question, use_case, request_id, organization, name, role) receive no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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 names a specific verb and resource ('prepare the secure checkout') and attaches a clear precondition ('After the human explicitly agrees to pay'), which sharply distinguishes this action from the get-only siblings get_faie_offers and get_faie_order_status. It also scopes the checkout to the two offer types ('bounded FAIE Signal Brief or Proof Sprint'). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it is not.

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 opening clause 'After the human explicitly agrees to pay' gives a concrete trigger condition for when to invoke the tool, and the phrase 'bounded ... Signal Brief or Proof Sprint' implies it should follow offer selection. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools as alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, but the precondition plus the boundary sentence provides clear usage context.

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