Centro

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

Discloses key behaviors: payment required, returns checkout URL, slot re-validation server-side, email not verified, and potential slot rejection. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and meets 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 critical warning front-loaded. All content is necessary, but slight room for further trimming without losing value. No 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?

Covers purpose, prerequisites, post-steps, and behavioral limitations. No output schema, but mentions checkout URL. Lacks explicit return format, but acceptable given no output schema. Satisfies completeness for a complex 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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by referencing get_availability for date parameters, list_booking_services for serviceId, and clarifying contact fields are required by venue. Adds usage context beyond schema 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?

Clear verb ('Book') and resource ('appointment slot at a venue') with explicit tie to Wix Bookings. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on booking with payment flow.

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 that nothing is booked until payment, requires calling get_availability immediately before, and instructs the agent to tell the user to open the link. Provides clear when-to-use and prerequisite.

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 full burden. It mentions that the user clicks the URL to complete payment and that no login is required on the AI agent side. However, it lacks details on side effects, session expiration, or authorization requirements.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary 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 the absence of an output schema, the description should specify the return value (the checkout URL). It also omits prerequisites, error conditions, and links to related tools like list_products.

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 no additional information beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like productId and quantity.

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 one or more store products, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_booking by focusing on checkout URL generation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is only implied through purpose.

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 takes full burden. Explicitly discloses timezone behavior (venue timezone, not directory's). Lack of annotations means no contradiction. Adequate for a read tool, but could mention idempotency or permissions.

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 purpose. Every sentence adds value. No extraneous 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?

No output schema, but description clarifies that slot times are returned. Could briefly describe response structure (e.g., start/end times), but sufficient for agent to infer.

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 critical context not in schema: ties serviceId to list_booking_services, reinforces date format, and emphasizes place_slug must match previous call. Provides integration guidance 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?

Description states 'Get available time slots for a bookable service on a given date (Wix Bookings)' - specific verb, resource, and context. Distinct from sibling tools like create_booking.

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 parameter instructions: use serviceId from list_booking_services, date in YYYY-MM-DD, and same place_slug. Notes timezone behavior. Could mention when not to use, but context implies usage for pre-booking check.

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 should disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions return fields (names, prices, sale status, quantity) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or note any side effects, errors, or authentication needs.

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-loading the purpose and then providing usage and return details. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter source, and return fields. It lacks error handling or edge case notes but is nearly complete for a straightforward read operation.

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% (the single parameter is documented). The description adds context that the slug comes from list_events, which is helpful but minimal. 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 tool retrieves ticket types and prices for a specific event, with the verb 'Get' and resource 'ticket types and prices' for a 'specific event'. It distinguishes from siblings like reserve_event_tickets by focusing on read-only information.

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 'Pass the event slug from list_events', providing clear prerequisite guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., reserve_event_tickets) or state when not to use this 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?

No annotations provided; the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any permissions or limitations. The action 'Get' implies safe reading, but transparency 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that efficiently states the purpose and return details with no extraneous content.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key return fields adequately. It could mention if site context or authentication is required, but largely 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?

No parameters exist, so the description adds value by detailing the output fields beyond the empty schema, which provides a baseline of 4.

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 ('Get') and resource ('loyalty/rewards program details'), and specifies exact return fields (name, points currency, tier structure). This distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 or why to use this tool, but the context shows no similar loyalty tool. Usage is implied as the sole tool for retrieving loyalty info.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists returned data (opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery links, ratings, etc.) and implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior, but the listed output is comprehensive and honest.

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 core action and input. It lists key output details without redundancy. While it could be slightly more concise, it efficiently conveys needed 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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential aspects: what the tool does, what input it expects, and what output it provides. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it omits error handling or edge cases.

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 the only parameter with a clear description. The tool description reinforces the parameter's meaning and context (e.g., 'by its URL slug') and adds value by explaining how the parameter maps to the output. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides solid context 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 the action (Get), the resource (full details for a specific place), and the input (URL slug). It enumerates returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_places' by focusing on a single place.

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 that the tool requires a URL slug but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_places for finding places). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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 alone must convey behavior. It mentions returns (menus, dishes, labels) but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid slug), side effects, or auth needs. The read nature is implied but not explicit.

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: first defines the action and output, second provides essential usage guidance. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, return content, and parameter source. Minor gaps: no mention of empty results or pagination, but acceptable.

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 a clear description of place_slug. The description adds real-world context by providing an example ('bar-do-ze') and the source (search_places or URL), exceeding schema information.

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 food menus for a specific restaurant, including sections, dishes, prices, and dietary labels. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_dishes by requiring a place_slug and referencing prerequisite tools.

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 instructs to use search_places or list_categories first to obtain the place_slug. It lacks alternative usage or when-not-to-use guidance but provides a clear prerequisite.

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. Discloses return fields but omits behavioral details like read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond limit parameter, or potential errors.

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 sentence, front-loaded with purpose and return fields. No redundancy or extraneous 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?

Simple tool with one optional param and no output schema. Description explains purpose and output fields. Could mention ordering or pagination but adequate for a read operation.

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% (limit parameter described in schema). Description adds no additional param details beyond schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb 'Get' + resource 'published reviews' + context 'for this site (Wix Reviews)'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_availability. Specifies return fields (reviewer name, rating, title, content).

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 (e.g., list_blog_posts). Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no when-not-to or exclusions.

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 discloses the output structure (cinema, session times, format, language) and a requirement, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, any auth needs, or rate limits.

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 with only two sentences, each providing essential information without any extraneous 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (cinema, session times, format, language) and includes a prerequisite. Minor gaps like date range limitations are missing, but overall sufficient for 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), default behavior (today BRT), and an example for movie_slug ('o-corvo-1016084'), which helps the agent understand parameter usage 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 gets showtimes for a specific movie at local cinemas on a given date, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_movies by focusing on showtimes, but does not explicitly differentiate from other similar tools.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires movies_enabled on this site') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_movies, nor does it state when not to use it.

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 disclose behavior. It accurately states the tool returns local time and weather, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention potential side effects or authentication, but for a simple info tool this is acceptable.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first lists return values efficiently, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: basic directory info plus local time and weather. This is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema provides no meaning. The description adds context about what the tool returns, which is sufficient. Baseline of 4 applies as no parameter documentation is needed.

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 fields (name, locale, domain, description, canonical URLs, local time, weather). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_place which focus on individual places.

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. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions, but the guidance is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 return fields (title, excerpt, author, etc.) and implies read-only, but does not specify ordering (e.g., by published date descending) or pagination behavior. Still provides useful context beyond schema.

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: first states purpose and scope, second lists return fields. Every sentence contributes value, no fluff.

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 adequately covers return fields. It lacks mention of sorting or error conditions, but for a simple list tool it is fairly 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 details. The description adds no new parameter info, thus baseline 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 'List recent published blog posts for this site (Wix Blog)' with specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_events 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 usage for reading blog posts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides exclusion criteria. No guidance on limitations 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?

No annotations, so description fully bears the burden. It discloses that services are listed for all venues including those without online booking, explains the `bookableViaMcp` flag meaning, and describes the behavior when `place_slug` is omitted. Adds significant context beyond schema.

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 paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains detailed guidance without fluff, though slightly lengthy due to necessary edge cases. Could be more structured but remains 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?

Comprehensive: explains return fields (name, description, price, duration, bookableViaMcp), covers edge cases (venues without booking, directory services), and provides actionable guidance. No output schema, so description fully compensates.

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 a good description. The description adds value by explaining the two modes and importance of passing `place_slug`, complementing the schema without redundancy.

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 'List a venue's services' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with the directory site's own services, making the tool's 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?

Explicitly advises to pass `place_slug` from search_places for typical use, warns against omitting it, and describes when to check `bookableViaMcp` and point to bookingUrl. Provides clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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 discloses the return content but does not mention behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no categories exist. For a zero-parameter read operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 informative sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and specifies the output structure concisely.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the returned taxonomy structure. It could mention ordering or hierarchy depth, but it is mostly complete given the low 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% (no parameters), so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate given there are no 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 returns the full category taxonomy and specifies the contents: top-level groups, subcategories, localized labels, schema.org types, and live place counts. It distinguishes from sibling list_* tools which target different entities.

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 context ('of this directory site') but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools for different entities imply purpose, but no exclusions or alternatives 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that events within 7 days include a weather forecast and that 'agora' is resolved live on every call. While it does not explicitly mention safety or idempotency, as a read-only list operation, 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?

The description is concise, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes all necessary information in two sentences without extraneous text. Every sentence 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's simplicity and absence of an output schema, the description fully covers return values (date, venue, price, URL, optional weather) and parameter usage. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'filter' enum values in detail (e.g., 'agora' for currently running events, 'hoje'/'amanha' for multi-day events). This helps the agent select the correct filter.

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 upcoming events with key fields (date, venue, price, URL). The verb 'List' and resource 'upcoming events' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_event_tickets' or 'reserve_event_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?

The description provides guidance on using the 'filter' parameter to narrow results and explains the 'agora' option as a live, real-time query. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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 discloses the return type (FAQ questions and answers grouped by category) and implies a read-only operation (non-destructive). However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving some behavioral details unspecified.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core function, and the second adds usage guidance. No redundant information is present.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides all necessary context: it explains what the tool returns and how to use it (for answering common questions). It is fully adequate for a simple list 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (since none exist). Per guidelines, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 'all FAQ questions and answers', and adds scoping details ('for this site', 'Grouped by category'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on FAQ content, which is specific among list tools.

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 tells when to use the tool ('Use this to answer common questions about the site'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for related but distinct queries.

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 full responsibility. It correctly implies a read-only operation by listing returned data without mentioning mutations. While it could mention pagination or authentication, the current description is clear and honest for a simple list 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?

The description is extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the action and return value. Every sentence adds value: the first states the primary purpose, the second provides usage guidance. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could briefly note if forms are filtered (e.g., only published), but this is a 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?

There are no parameters, so no additional explanation is needed. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 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 action ('List'), the resource ('available contact/signup forms'), and the scope ('on this site (Wix Forms)'). It also describes the return values ('form name, ID, and field definitions'), making the purpose unambiguous. Among sibling tools, it uniquely targets forms, distinguishing itself from other list tools.

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 before 'submit_form' to discover fields, providing a clear usage context. It does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the guidance is practical and sufficient for the intended workflow.

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 does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, side effects, rate limits, pagination behavior, or how ranking works. This leaves significant gaps 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 it is a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (ranked places with editorial notes) and common usage context. However, it lacks details on sorting or filtering beyond limit.

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 parameter 'limit.' The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not explain how the limit affects results or any other 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 identifies the tool as listing curated editorial guides ('best of' lists) with ranked places and editorial notes. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('curated editorial guides'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blog_posts or 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 states it is 'the best source for "best X in this neighborhood" questions,' implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, which would improve clarity.

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 prerequisite (movies_enabled) and states the output categories and fields. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but being a listing tool, these are implicit.

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-load the key purpose and condition, then details categories and output fields. Every sentence earns its place—no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema, the description covers return fields and parameter behavior. It omits pagination details but mentions the limit parameter implicitly. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a list 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The tool description reinforces the status parameter's meaning through examples ('now-showing' = films with upcoming showtimes) but does not add significant new information 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 the tool lists movies with specific categories (now-showing, coming-soon, streaming) and includes key fields like title, genres, rating, runtime, and URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_showtimes, which focus on showtimes rather than movie listings.

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 browsing movie catalogs and notes the prerequisite 'only on sites with movies_enabled.' While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, the context is clear and no sibling tool duplicates this function.

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. It discloses that offers are active and FLASH ones have countdowns, but omits details like ordering, pagination, or authentication needs. Basic transparency 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and return fields. 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 simple list tool with two optional params and no output schema, description covers purpose, return fields, and a special case (FLASH). Could mention default ordering or pagination limits, but limit parameter addresses max count. 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 already describes both parameters fully (kind enum, limit count). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating 'active' and 'FLASH', which aligns with kind enum. Baseline 3 as schema coverage is 100%.

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 'list active promotions and deals' and specifies what fields are returned. It distinguishes FLASH offers with a countdown deadline. Among siblings, it uniquely identifies offers.

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 implies usage for listing active promotions but does not explicitly state when to use or provide alternatives or exclusions. No guidance on when not to use.

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. Discloses the behavioral difference when place_slug is omitted (lists directory plans, which most sites don't have). Mentions return fields (name, description, price, etc.), implying read-only nature. 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value. No filler or 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?

No output schema, but description lists return fields. Covers the parameter nuance, typical use case, and relationship to other tools (search_places). Adequate for a simple list tool with one optional parameter.

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 meaning: explains the parameter's purpose, the critical distinction between providing it or not, and that it comes from search_places. This goes far beyond the schema's 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?

Clearly states it lists membership/subscription plans (Wix Pricing Plans), with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes between listing venue-specific plans (with place_slug) and directory site's own plans, which is a key nuance not present in sibling tools.

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 recommends using place_slug for venue plans ('in almost every case') and notes that omitting it gives directory plans. Provides context on where to get place_slug (search_places). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, though no close siblings exist.

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 fields but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, authorization needs, pagination behavior, or rate limits. Acceptable but could be more 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?

Single sentence with clear action and return information. No wasted words; front-loaded with verb and resource.

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 (2 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and return values. Missing pagination detail for the limit parameter, but overall 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The parameters (q, limit) are well-described in the schema, 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists products in a site's store (Wix Stores) and specifies returned fields (name, price, stock status, product type). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_blog_posts or list_booking_services.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_offers, list_booking_services). The description merely states what it does without context 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, the description carries full transparency burden. It only states the return fields (name, URL, category, metadata) but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has pagination behavior, or any other operational details. The lack of side-effect or access information is a significant gap.

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 no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return structure without extra wording, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, examples, and return fields. However, the reference to 'any available metadata (age, height, etc.)' is somewhat vague, and there is no mention of pagination or default behavior beyond the schema. Still, it is largely 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 coverage is 100% as the single parameter 'limit' has a description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema value, so baseline 3 is appropriate. There is no additional parameter context or syntax 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 tool lists solo service-provider profiles, defines what those are (businesses without fixed physical location), and gives concrete examples (dog walkers, tutors, trainers). It also lists the returned fields, making the purpose distinct from siblings like list_booking_services or 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the tool's function, leaving the agent to infer appropriate 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, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the deferral mechanism, email confirmation link, 24-hour expiration, and out-of-band restaurant confirmation, leaving no hidden surprises.

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: three sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with critical caveats in all-caps emphasis. Every sentence adds essential information with no 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 no output schema, the description fully explains the expected outcome (email sent, no immediate notification) and what the user should do. It covers all important behavioral aspects for a tool with complex deferred side effects.

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 emphasizing that the email must be the guest's own address and that the confirmation link is sent there, clarifying a critical constraint 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 the tool requests a table and explicitly distinguishes it from a confirmed booking, using the sibling 'create_booking' for comparison. The verb 'request' and resource 'reservation' are 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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it explains that the restaurant is not notified immediately and instructs the user to check their inbox. It implies that for immediate confirmation, 'create_booking' should 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?

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses that the hold is temporary, nothing is paid, the hold expires on its own, and it only works for site-sold events. 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?

Description is concise, well-structured with critical caveats highlighted (temporary hold, external events), and no superfluous 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?

Covers all key aspects: purpose, return value (checkout URL), limits, expiration, and alternatives. No output schema exists, but description mentions return of a URL.

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 value by referencing get_event_tickets for ticketDefinitionId and list_events for event_slug, and clarifies the tickets array structure.

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 it holds tickets and returns a checkout URL, specifies the resource (event tickets on Wix Events), and distinguishes from other tools like create_booking or rsvp_event.

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 when to use (for events sold directly through the site) and when not (external events, use the event's own ticketUrl). Also mentions max limits of 10 tickets and 10 ticket types.

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 the tool's behavior: the RSVP is not immediate, a confirmation email is sent, the link expires in 24 hours, and the confirmation link is deliberately not returned. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. 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 (4 params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: the async confirmation, email requirement, instruction to user, and the fact that the link is not returned. 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?

All 4 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), but the description adds value by explaining the email parameter's role in the confirmation flow and reinforcing that the email must belong to the guest. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 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?

The description clearly states it is for RSVPing to free events on Wix Events, using a specific verb ('RSVP') and resource ('free event'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reserve_event_tickets by explicitly mentioning 'free event'.

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 the RSVP process (confirmation email, 24-hour expiry, no immediate guest list), instructs the user to check their inbox, and advises using a real address for the person being acted for. This 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?

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: searches across all restaurants, returns grouped results with price, description, dietary labels, and URL. Lacks authentication or rate limit info, but adequate for a read-only search.

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 plus example, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose, then details. Every sentence contributes.

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?

No output schema, but description explicitly lists return fields (price, description, dietary labels, place URL). For a 2-param search tool, this is 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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value: explains that omitting query lists top dishes and gives example ('feijoada'). Exceeds baseline by providing usage context.

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?

Describes a specific verb-resource pair ('Find which restaurants serve a dish') and distinguishes from siblings (e.g., search_places for general places). Example with 'feijoada' clarifies behavior.

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 ('where can I eat X?') and describes behavior when query is omitted. No mention of alternatives, but sibling differentiation is clear from purpose.

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 discloses accent-insensitive and typo-tolerant matching, filter semantics (ALL must match for attributes), and result fields (open_now, attributes, delivery, rating, structured hours). This level of detail is excellent 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 a single paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains useful details without redundancy. While it could be slightly more structured, it remains concise and every sentence 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 6 parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, the description covers the matching algorithm, all filters, and key result fields. It lacks error handling or rate limits but is sufficient for a search tool with good schema coverage.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining accent-insensitivity and typo-tolerance for 'q', the meaning of 'open_now' (exact moment), and that 'attributes' must all match. These details go beyond the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for places like restaurants and cafes, and distinguishes from siblings such as search_dishes (searches dishes) and get_place (single place). The verb 'search' and resource 'places' are specific, avoiding tautology.

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 the matching behavior and filter composition, implying usage for general place search with filters. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the sibling names provide context, and the description is clear enough for typical usage.

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 mentions it's a write operation and returns a submissionId, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key prerequisite. 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool, the description covers the flow (list_forms first), parameters, and return value. Missing error handling details, but adequate for a straightforward submission.

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 description adds value by explaining that fields are key-value pairs matching list_forms keys and gives an example. The schema already has good descriptions, so the baseline is 3; the example and return info raise it to 4.

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 (submit), resource (form), and context (Wix Forms). It specifies to call list_forms first, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 instructs to call list_forms first to obtain formId and field keys. While it doesn't state when not to use, it provides clear prerequisite guidance.

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