ROASTED

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the valuable 'Creates no charge' detail, which is not captured by annotations and clarifies cost behavior. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits or response format, but given the annotations, a moderate score is appropriate.

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 concise: two short sentences that immediately state the primary purpose and the key non-charge behavior. No wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. Perfectly structured for quick agent consumption.

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 has zero parameters, a simple read operation, and annotations that fully cover safety aspects (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the key cost behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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 no parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden. The description correctly indicates what information is returned (price, styles, scope) without needing to explain parameters. As this is a parameterless tool, the baseline of 4 is justified.

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 reads the current ROASTED price, styles, and scope, identifying the specific resource and action. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_roast_result, but the term 'offer' vs 'result' provides some distinction. Overall, the purpose is clear and specific.

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 its siblings (get_roast_result, prepare_roast_checkout). It doesn't mention alternatives or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone. This is a gap given the presence of related tools.

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 description's 'Read' aligns. The description adds no extra context about potential errors, token validity, or whether the result is cached. The burden is partially covered by annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the verb 'Read'. No wordiness, but the title 'Get ROASTED result' is a stylistic choice that might reduce clarity. Still, the body is concise.

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 is adequate. It doesn't specify what the result contains or any prerequisites (e.g., payment), but the sibling names suggest a flow. The description could benefit from mentioning that the token must come from a completed checkout.

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 only one parameter 'share_token' with minLength 8. The description mentions 'share token' but doesn't add format details or explain the token's role beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description could do more, but the parameter name is self-explanatory.

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 the verb 'read' and resource 'paid roast result', but the title 'Get ROASTED result' is a stylized variant that may mislead. The purpose is clear enough but lacks specifics about what the result contains.

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 accessing a paid result via share token, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_roast_offer or prepare_roast_checkout. Agents may need to infer which tool to use based on the 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 indicate this is a mutating operation but provide no detail. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it requires explicit human confirmation and warns that checkout creation is not payment proof. This goes beyond what the schema or annotations already convey.

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 the most important precondition front-loaded and the payment-proof caveat placed second. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 key precondition and a critical caveat, making the tool minimally viable. However, with four parameters and no output schema, it leaves return behavior and parameter selection mostly to inference.

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 only implicitly maps to user_confirmed_payment through 'explicitly agrees to pay 99 cents'. submitted_text, request_id, and roast_style receive no guidance, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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 identifies a specific action ('prepare the secure checkout') and a distinct resource, and includes a precondition ('After the human explicitly agrees to pay 99 cents'). This clearly separates it from the read-oriented sibling tools get_roast_offer and get_roast_result.

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 an explicit condition for use: only after the human explicitly agrees to pay. This tells the agent when to call the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the precondition is strong enough context to avoid premature invocation.

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