Agenda SP

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: payment is required to confirm, returns a checkout URL, booking stays off calendar until payment, email not verified, and taken slots are rejected. This is comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains multiple caveats. While slightly dense, every sentence contributes value. Could be broken into bullet points for clarity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, behavior, and parameter origins well. However, it does not describe the exact structure of the returned checkout URL or any error details.

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%, but the description adds critical context: contact fields are required and email is not verified, date parameters must match get_availability exactly, and IDs must come from specific sibling tools. This significantly enriches the 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 clearly states the action: 'Book an appointment slot at a venue (Wix Bookings).' It specifies the verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_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?

Explicitly advises calling get_availability immediately before and explains that the slot is re-validated server-side. It also instructs the user to open the checkout URL, but does not list scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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 no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: creates a URL (not a direct transaction), requires no login on the AI agent side, and user completes payment via click. However, it omits potential side effects like URL expiration or required store authentication.

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, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and key context (Wix Stores, no login needed). 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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return value (the URL). It implies the output is a URL ('Create...URL') but does not explicitly state that the tool returns it. For a creation tool, this is a minor gap. Otherwise, it covers inputs and user flow adequately.

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% (both productId and quantity described), so baseline is 3. The description adds 'one or more store products' and references list_products, but these largely repeat schema info. No additional semantic depth beyond 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 clearly states the tool creates a direct checkout URL for store products, using the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'checkout URL'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_products and create_booking by specifying the domain (Wix Stores) and outcome (user completes payment).

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 when needing a checkout URL for products, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., list_products for browsing). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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 no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It reveals that slot times are in the venue's timezone, which is critical for correct interpretation. No mention of idempotency or error handling, but for a read tool this is sufficient.

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 sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 no output schema, the description explains output is 'available time slots' and adds timezone nuance. Could specify slot structure (e.g., start/end), but overall adequate for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by reinforcing the need to reuse place_slug from list_booking_services and clarifying date format. This enriches the 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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('available time slots'), and context ('Wix Bookings'). It also references a sibling tool (list_booking_services) to show data provenance, making the purpose distinct.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to pass serviceId from list_booking_services, date in YYYY-MM-DD, and the same place_slug. Provides a behavioral caveat about timezone. Lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use, but otherwise strong.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses what the tool returns: ticket names, prices, sale status, and remaining count. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects. While it doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, these are less critical for a simple lookup tool.

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 wasted words. First sentence defines purpose and scope (Wix Events), second sentence specifies input source and output. Efficient and 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?

Given the simple parameter set (1 required string), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for a read-only lookup. It could mention authentication requirements or limitations, but those are not critical for typical usage.

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 describes event_slug as 'Event slug from list_events' (100% coverage). The description adds the same hint ('Pass the event slug from list_events'), offering no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get ticket types and prices for a specific event', specifying the verb 'get', the resource 'ticket types and prices', and the scope per event. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events (listing events) and reserve_event_tickets (booking tickets).

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?

Description explicitly tells the user to 'Pass the event slug from list_events', providing clear context for input. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reserve_event_tickets (e.g., 'check availability before booking'), though the output implies a read-before-write pattern.

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?

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Clearly indicates a read operation ('Get...returns') with no side effects. Lacks mention of error cases or authentication needs, but sufficient for a simple query.

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, directly states purpose and return details. No filler, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Completes the agent's understanding of what the tool returns given no output schema. Slightly vague on structure (e.g., format of tier structure), but sufficient for typical use.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage 100%. Description adds no param info (none needed). Baseline 4 for parameter-free tools.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves loyalty/rewards program details for the site, specifying return fields (program name, points currency, tier structure). Distinct from sibling tools which cover bookings, events, products, etc.

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 guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Since no other sibling covers loyalty, usage is implied but not elaborated. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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 no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output's non-obvious fields (e.g., open_now boolean, delivery deep-links). No side effects are expected for a read operation, and the description is transparent about what is returned.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., list format), but it is concise and covers key points without waste.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a fairly complete picture of the returned data. It lacks mention of error conditions or read-only nature, but these are implicit.

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 single parameter 'slug' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description only reiterates 'URL slug' without adding further semantics, such as format constraints or examples beyond the 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 clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'place' by URL slug, and details the returned fields (opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery links, ratings, address, neighborhood). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_places' or 'get_reviews'.

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 use when you need full details for a specific place, but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives (e.g., when not to use search_places) or mention prerequisites like slug availability. Adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns menus with specific details, implying a read-only operation, but lacks explicit mention of side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 concise sentences each add value: purpose, return content, and prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 retrieval tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return content, and prerequisite. It lacks details on output structure or error handling but is adequate given complexity.

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% and the parameter description already includes the example and source. The tool description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states that the tool gets the food menu for a specific restaurant, listing specific return contents. It distinguishes from siblings like search_places and list_categories.

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 instructs to use search_places or list_categories first to obtain the place_slug, providing clear context and prerequisites. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is strong.

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 no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns specific fields and implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter). Adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, with zero wasted words. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 nearly complete. It specifies the return fields and confirms published reviews, though it could mention implicit site-specific filtering. Minor 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 100% since the only parameter 'limit' is fully described. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'published reviews for this site (Wix Reviews)', and the specific data fields returned (reviewer name, rating, title, content). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_blog_posts or list_products.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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 no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It accurately describes the return data (session times, format, language) and the requirement. It does not mention side effects, but the tool is clearly a read-only query and no destructive behavior is implied.

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 very concise, using two sentences to convey the purpose, return content, and a prerequisite. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 lack of an output schema, the description provides a helpful summary of the return structure (cinemas with session times, format, language). It also covers the prerequisite. It does not specify pagination or field details, but for a relatively simple tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no new parameter details beyond confirming the overall purpose, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 retrieves showtimes for a specific movie at local cinemas on a given date, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_movies (which lists movies, not showtimes). The verb 'get' and resource 'showtimes' are specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions that 'movies_enabled' must be set on the site, providing a prerequisite. It implies the need to use list_movies to obtain the movie_slug, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative tool comparisons.

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 no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool is read-only (returns information) and lists the specific data returned. It does not mention potential rate limits or caching, but for a simple info tool, this is adequately transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and list of returned items. Every part is necessary and there is no wasted text.

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 simplicity, no annotations or output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns and when to use it. It does not specify if weather/time is live or cached, but this is a minor omission for a straightforward info tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by detailing the output, which is beyond the baseline expectation for no parameters, making it highly informative for the agent.

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 returns basic information about the neighborhood directory, listing specific items such as name, locale, domain, description, canonical URLs, local time, and current weather. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on bookings, events, and other specific functionalities.

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 advises using this tool for 'what time is it there' or 'what's the weather like' context, providing clear guidance on when to invoke it. While it doesn't mention alternatives, the specific usage context is sufficient.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only (listing), but does not disclose pagination details, ordering, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that concisely conveys the action, source, and output. No unnecessary words, and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what is returned. Minor omission: ordering is implied by 'recent' but not explicitly stated as chronological descending.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'limit' and 'category' 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 it lists recent published blog posts, specifies the source (Wix Blog), and lists return fields. This distinguishes it from siblings which cover other entities like events, products, or bookings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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?

Discloses that services are listed for every venue including those without online booking, and explains how to check bookableViaMcp. Also notes that id is null when not bookable, and directs to bookingUrl as fallback. No annotations present, so description fully bears the transparency burden and does so thoroughly.

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?

Description is five sentences packed with information. While no word is wasted, the density could be slightly improved by splitting into bullet points or shorter sentences for easier scanning. Still very concise overall.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates return fields and explains their implications for booking. Also connects to sibling tools search_places and create_booking. Covers all essential context for such a simple tool.

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 already has a good description for place_slug, but the tool description adds critical context: origin from search_places, typical use case, and relationship to create_booking. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists a venue's services with verb 'list' and resource 'services'. It distinguishes between venue services and directory services, and lists output fields. Purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says to pass place_slug for venue services, which is the intended use, and warns that omitting it returns directory services which most sites lack. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content and structure of the return value (hierarchy, localized labels, schema.org types, place counts), but does not mention potential limitations like pagination or caching.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource, with no superfluous words. Every phrase adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure (hierarchy, labels, types, counts). However, it could detail the exact format or order of items, though not strictly necessary for a taxonomy listing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty. The description adds full meaning by explaining what the response contains, which is essential for an agent to understand the tool's output without any schema hints.

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?

Description clearly specifies verb 'Returns', resource 'full category taxonomy', and details what is included (top-level groups, subcategories, labels, types, place counts), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_products or list_events.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied by the tool's nature (simple read operation with no parameters), but the description lacks explicit 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?

Discloses that events within next 7 days include a weatherForecast and that filter:'agora' is resolved live on every call. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden and adds valuable behavioral details.

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 well-structured sentences. First sentence states purpose and returns; second provides advanced usage. No fluff, front-loaded with core functionality.

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?

Mentions output fields including weatherForecast for 7-day events. Without output schema, this is helpful. Could add default limit/order, but sufficient for a list tool with annotated params.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. Description adds context for filter values, especially 'agora' behavior and exclusion of season/day-granular sources, enhancing understanding beyond schema enum descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'list' and resource 'upcoming events in this neighborhood' with specific fields (date, venue, price, URL). Distinguishes from siblings like list_movies or list_blog_posts by neighborhood events scope.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use filter values like 'agora' (live on stage right now) and provides context for other filters. Lacks broader comparison to sibling list tools, but parameter-level guidance is strong.

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 no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation that returns all FAQs grouped by category, which is sufficient for a simple list tool. No side effects or destructive actions are mentioned, which aligns with the expected behavior.

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 two sentences long, efficient, and front-loaded with the key purpose. Every sentence is informative and no unnecessary text.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers its purpose, usage, and output format (grouped by category). It is complete for an agent to select and 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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no additional parameter information, but with no parameters, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get all FAQ questions and answers for this site (Wix FAQ). Grouped by category.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings as no other sibling tool targets FAQs.

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 advises to use this tool 'to answer common questions about the site — opening hours, parking, policies, etc.' This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure (form name, ID, field definitions) and implies safe read-only operation by listing forms. Lacks explicit mention of no side effects or authentication needs, but sufficient for a simple list operation.

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 wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core verb and resource. The second adds practical guidance. Highly efficient and 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and output. It clearly states what it returns and how to use it in a workflow (before submit_form). No gaps.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there is nothing to explain.

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 contact/signup forms and specifies exactly what is returned: form name, ID, and field definitions. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states to use before submit_form to discover fields, providing clear when-to-use context and referencing a sibling tool. However, does not mention when not to use or any alternative tools among siblings.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'ranked places with editorial notes' but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or what happens when no guides exist. The description lacks critical context beyond purpose.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a usage hint. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., inclusion of editorial notes, rankings). While functional, it could be more complete for a tool returning complex data.

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% with the 'limit' parameter well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'curated editorial guides', and specifies they are 'ranked places with editorial notes'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_blog_posts by focusing on curated recommendations for 'best X in this neighborhood' questions.

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 says 'The best source for "best X in this neighborhood" questions', providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, so it loses one point.

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?

No annotations provided, but description covers output details (now-showing, coming-soon, streaming availability and included fields). It clearly indicates read-only behavior without mentioning mutations or side effects. Could mention pagination or response format, but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 that are front-loaded and to the point. All information is relevant and 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 simple listing tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and returned data. It is complete for its complexity.

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% and description adds context by defining the status filter values inline with the enum descriptions. However, it does not add new information beyond what the schema provides; baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists movies available in the neighborhood with specific categories (now-showing, coming-soon, streaming) and returned fields (title, genres, TMDB rating, runtime, detail URL). It is distinct from sibling tools which deal with bookings, events, restaurants, etc.

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?

Explicitly states this tool is available 'only on sites with movies_enabled', providing a key usage condition. However, no guidance on when NOT to use or explicit alternatives; sibling tools are diverse and no direct alternative for movie listing exists.

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 no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that FLASH offers have a countdown deadline, but fails to state that the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination. This is minimal for a tool with no 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, no fluff. The first sentence states the core function, the second lists return fields. Every word 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 listing tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (discount label, promo code, etc.) and special case (FLASH). Minor gap: no mention of ordering or that it returns all active offers by default.

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%, achieving baseline 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'FLASH offers have a countdown deadline' reiterates the enum description. No additional context on limit usage or default behavior is provided.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'active promotions and deals', distinguishing it from sibling list tools (e.g., list_products, list_events). It also specifies return fields, making intent unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_products for products). While the name and description imply purpose, an agent would benefit from a note like 'Use for promotional content only, not for general product listings.'

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return values (name, description, price, billing cycle, perks, checkout URL) and the behavior with/without place_slug. It does not mention any side effects or authentication needs, but for a list operation this is adequate.

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 only three sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then explains parameter usage, and finally lists return fields. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, return values. It is complete and self-contained.

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% with one parameter fully described. The description adds value by explaining the 'strongly recommended' nature and consequences of omitting place_slug, and links it to search_places, which goes beyond the schema's static description.

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 membership/subscription plans for Wix Pricing Plans. It specifies the resource (membership/subscription plans) and distinguishes between venue plans and directory plans, which differentiates it from siblings like get_place or list_events.

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?

Explicit guidance: pass place_slug to list a venue's plans (almost every case), omit to get directory's own plans (rare). Also instructs to source place_slug from search_places, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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?

No annotations exist, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It mentions the return fields (name, price, stock status, product type) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Pagination behavior and error conditions are also omitted.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every word adds value, with no repetition or 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 simple list tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies return fields. The only minor gap is not describing pagination behavior (e.g., how to get next page) or any prerequisites (e.g., Wix Stores must be active).

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds a mention of product name matching for the 'q' parameter and default/max for 'limit', but these are already in the schema. No additional value beyond schema is provided.

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 action ('List products'), the resource ('products'), and the scope ('in this site's store (Wix Stores)'). It also specifies the return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context (listing products) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_offers, list_pricing_plans). No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions return fields (name, profile URL, category, metadata) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, safety, side effects, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. The default limit is implied by the schema but not in the description.

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 sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and return fields without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently uses space.

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 simple input schema with one optional parameter, the description explains what the tool returns. However, it does not mention pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, ordering, or whether the list includes all profiles. For a listing tool, this is decent but could be more complete.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, but it does provide context about the return fields, helping understand the parameter's purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 solo service-provider profiles on the site, distinguishing them as businesses without a fixed physical location with relevant examples (dog walkers, tutors). This verb+resource combination is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like list_blog_posts or list_products.

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 this tool is for listing solo service-provider profiles, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other list_* tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses that the request is not sent until email confirmation, link expires in 24 hours, and this is not a confirmed booking. All key behaviors are transparent.

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 very concise with every sentence adding value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately clarifies the asynchronous nature.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: the flow, what the agent must instruct the user, and the tool's limitations. It is complete for the complexity of a request-based reservation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context to the 'email' parameter by explaining it is used for confirmation link and the link is not returned. This exceeds baseline.

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 'Request a table at a restaurant' and differentiates from a confirmed booking, aligning with the sibling tool 'create_booking'. It uses specific verb-resource pair ('request a table').

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?

Explicitly states when to use (requesting a table), what happens (email confirmation, link expiration), and what to tell the user (check inbox, use real email). Implicitly excludes cases where confirmed booking is needed, guiding agent to sibling 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?

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the hold is temporary, expires on its own, and does not constitute payment. It also warns that tickets are not secured until a human completes checkout via the URL.

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 purpose stated first, followed by essential behavioral notes and constraints. Every sentence provides critical information without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (checkout URL) and covers all behavioral aspects (temporary hold, expiry, limits). It also references related tools (get_event_tickets, list_events) and distinguishes from sibling tools. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that the tickets array must not exceed 10 total tickets and 10 ticket types, which is a constraint not present in the schema. This enhances parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Hold tickets', the resource 'event tickets for an event sold through this site (Wix Events)', and specifies the return of a checkout URL. It also distinguishes from events sold elsewhere, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool (for Wix Events tickets) and when not (for events sold via Sympla, Ingresse, Sesc, use the event's own ticketUrl). It also provides constraints (max 10 tickets and 10 ticket types) and behavioral details (temporary hold, expires, requires human checkout).

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?

Discloses key behavioral traits: no instant RSVP, email confirmation required, link expiry, and that the confirmation link is not returned. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does it well.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose, no fluff, each sentence adds essential information. Capitalization for emphasis is appropriate.

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?

Explains workflow well but does not mention return value or error handling. Without output schema, a hint about response format would improve completeness. Otherwise adequate for a simple RSVP tool.

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?

Input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds contextual value (e.g., email gets confirmation link) but does not fundamentally extend parameter meaning beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool is for RSVPing to a free event on Wix Events. The verb 'RSVP' and resource 'event' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like reserve_event_tickets for paid events.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: RSVP is not immediate, confirmation email sent, link expires in 24 hours, instructs to tell user to check inbox, and uses real address. Implies when to use (free events) and not to use (paid events via sibling 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?

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it searches every menu item across all restaurants, groups results by dish, returns price, description, dietary labels, and the place URL. This provides complete transparency for an agent.

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 two sentences long with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and provides additional details efficiently.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (each restaurant with price, description, dietary labels, URL). With only 2 simple parameters, this is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the query parameter can be a dish name or part of it, and that omitting it lists top dishes. This clarifies usage beyond the schema description.

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's purpose: 'Find which restaurants serve a dish in this neighborhood.' It specifies the verb 'Find' and the resource 'restaurants serve a dish,' and distinguishes it from siblings like search_places by focusing on dishes.

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 says 'Use this for any "where can I eat X" question,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It also notes that omitting the query lists the most-served dishes. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient.

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 no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: query matching robustness, filter semantics (open_now server-side, attributes ALL match), and result fields including delivery deep-links and structured hours. No contradictions.

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?

Concise at ~150 words, every sentence provides useful information. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by details on query behavior, filters, and result fields. No redundancy or waste.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (open_now, attributes, delivery, rating, hours) and lists common amenity slugs. Covers all 6 parameters with practical examples, making it complete for an AI agent.

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% but description adds significant value: notes accent-insensitive and typo-tolerant for 'q', server-side computation for 'open_now', and ALL-must-match for 'attributes'. These enrich understanding beyond the 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 clearly states it searches for places (restaurants, cafes, shops) in a neighborhood, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_dishes' or 'get_place' by its scope and filter capabilities.

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 explains when to use this tool (free-text and filter-based place search) and details matching behavior (accent-insensitive, typo-tolerant). It implicitly suggests alternatives like 'get_place' for known IDs, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. Mentions submission on behalf of user and return value, but fails to disclose side effects such as validation, duplicate checks, or email notifications. Minimal behavioral context.

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 superfluous content. Main action front-loaded, efficient and clear.

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-parameter tool without output schema, description covers prerequisites (list_forms), parameter semantics, and return value. Could mention error handling but overall adequate.

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% for parameters. Description adds valuable example with specific key-value format and references list_forms for field keys, going beyond schema's type-only descriptions.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'submit' and identifies resource 'form (Wix Forms)'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_forms by stating it's the submission counterpart.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call list_forms first to obtain formId and field keys, and specifies return value (submissionId). Lacks when-not-to-use guidance but sufficient for a simple submission tool.

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