FindMyPart

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's verb 'Describe' aligns with those. It adds useful scope beyond the annotations by specifying that the tool covers endpoints, payment boundaries, and agent tools, which helps an agent know what to expect from the response.

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, tightly worded sentence with the action verb front-loaded and the subject matter listed as a concise set. Every phrase contributes useful information and there is 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 zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool, the description conveys purpose and scope sufficiently. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the simple descriptive nature, though the description does not hint at the response format or detail level.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so per baseline it does not need parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is required given the empty 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 uses a clear verb ('Describe') and names a specific object: FindMyPart machine-facing endpoints, payment boundaries, and available agent tools. This is clearly a meta/capability tool and is distinguishable from the part-hunt sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 intended use is implied: an agent would call this to discover FindMyPart's capabilities before choosing among operations. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond stating 'Read-only'. It does clarify no checkout or payment obligation is created, which is useful, but given the annotations already cover safety, the description's added value is minimal.

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 concise sentences, zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only clarification is 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is complete. It lacks return format details, but with no output schema and simple purpose, this is a minor gap. The mention of 'paid' options clarifies the tool's scope.

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 zero parameters, the schema is fully covered and the description needs no parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to explain about 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists current paid FindMyPart hunt options and pricing, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on offers/pricing, though it could be more explicit about how it differs from get_findmypart_capabilities, which might also list options.

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 for viewing offers before purchasing, and the 'read-only' note hints when not to use it (for actual purchases). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like prepare_part_hunt_checkout for when the user wants to buy, leaving some inference needed.

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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the retrieved state covers 'payment/fulfillment/solution', providing useful context about what data is returned. However, it does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or token validation, so the added value beyond annotations is moderate.

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 concise, with the main action and resource in the first sentence, followed by a short 'Read-only.' note. The second sentence is redundant with annotations but not verbose. The structure is front-loaded and readable, though the 'Read-only.' could be considered unnecessary.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a high-level indication of what is returned ('payment/fulfillment/solution state') but lacks details about the response structure or possible error conditions. Given the lack of an output schema, more specificity about the return content would improve completeness, but it is minimally 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It clarifies that the 'tracking_token' identifies a specific hunt and is used to retrieve its current state, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type and length constraints. It does not detail token format or validation, but the semantic role is clear.

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 ('Retrieve') and a resource ('current payment/fulfillment/solution state for a FindMyPart hunt'), which is distinct from siblings like get_part_hunt_offers (offers) and prepare_part_hunt_checkout (checkout). The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology of the name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. The mention of 'using its tracking token' implies a prerequisite but not a 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?

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it creates a session, does not charge, and does not prove payment, plus implies a reservation side effect. This is beyond the structured fields and no contradiction exists.

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 condition and action, and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the non-charging nuance.

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 involves complex state changes and 11 parameters, but the description does not mention the output format (e.g., how the checkout URL is returned, whether an ID or expiry is provided). It also ignores parameter semantics. For a checkout preparation, this is incomplete for an agent to invoke 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 0% and the description provides no parameter-level explanation. It only indirectly mentions user_confirmed_payment via 'explicitly agrees to pay', but does not clarify offer_slug, email, part_description, or optional parameters. With 11 parameters, this is a significant gap that the description fails to address.

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 clear action: after human confirmation, reserve the hunt and prepare a secure checkout URL. It also clarifies it does not charge or prove payment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (capabilities, offers, status) which are all read-only queries.

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 explicitly conditions usage on the human agreeing to pay, which is a useful trigger. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool performs checkout, so the context is sufficient. It does not mention when not to use it, but the precondition is clear.

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