Olé Futebol

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: nothing is booked until payment, returns a checkout URL, booking stays off calendar, server-side slot re-validation, and email not verified. No hidden behaviors.

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?

All sentences are substantive and well-organized: upfront purpose, critical warning in caps, usage prerequisites, and parameter hints. No fluff; each line 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 complex tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and important side effects, the description covers the entire flow: preconditions, behavior, post-conditions, and user action required. It is complete for effective 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds valuable context: ties startDate/endDate to get_availability, serviceId to list_booking_services, place_slug to search_places, and explains contact requirements. This greatly aids parameter selection.

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 verb 'Book an appointment slot at a venue (Wix Bookings)'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing that nothing is booked until payment, which sets it apart from tools like request_reservation or get_availability.

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 instructions: call get_availability immediately before, inform user about the checkout URL, and notes that contact email is not verified. It also warns about slot re-validation and rejection, covering when and how 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?

The description mentions the no-login requirement, a behavioral trait, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or idempotency. Without annotations, more transparency would be expected.

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 with purpose front-loaded. No redundant words or irrelevant 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?

The description does not explain the return value (the generated URL) or error handling. For a tool with no output schema, this omission is a gap, though the core purpose is clear.

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 new parameter information beyond what the schema provides; it only restates the purpose.

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, specifying the context (Wix Stores) and the user action. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_booking or get_availability.

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 you need a checkout URL without login) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No comparison with sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It discloses that returned times are in the venue's timezone, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention read-only nature, error conditions, return structure, or pagination. Adequate but leaves gaps.

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 a clause: extremely concise, front-loaded with purpose, then instructions and a critical warning. Every part earns its place with 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?

No output schema and moderate complexity. The description explains the tool's core function and a key nuance (timezone), but does not cover return format, error handling (e.g., invalid date or unavailable service), or what happens if no slots exist. Adequate for a simple query but not comprehensive.

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 repeats schema info for date and serviceId. It adds value by reminding to use the same place_slug and noting timezone relevance, but does not provide new constraints or enrich meaning 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 verb ('Get'), resource ('available time slots'), and context ('Wix Bookings, bookable service, given date'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_booking_services (which lists services, not slots) and create_booking (which creates a 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?

The description specifies prerequisites (serviceId from list_booking_services, same place_slug) and provides a clear usage context. It warns about timezone differences. Missing explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct tool 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return values (names, prices, status, quantity) and implies a read-only operation. No mention of side effects or auth needs, but adequate for a simple query 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 filler. First sentence states purpose and tool family, second provides input source and output summary. Highly 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?

No output schema, but description sufficiently explains return values. Input is well-defined with single parameter. Context of usage (pre-reservation) is implied. Complete for tool 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% with single parameter event_slug described as 'Event slug from list_events.' Description repeats this but adds no additional semantics beyond redundancy. 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 it retrieves ticket types and prices for a specific event, specifies it's for Wix Events, and lists exact return fields (ticket names, prices, sale status, count left). Differentiates from siblings like reserve_event_tickets and 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 instructs to pass the event slug from list_events, indicating a prerequisite. Could be improved by noting when not to use or mentioning post-use for reservation, but current guidance is clear for retrieval 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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the return values but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior if no loyalty program exists. It is moderately transparent for a simple getter.

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, efficient sentence that conveys all essential information without extraneous words. Every part 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 no parameters, no output schema, and straightforward behavior, the description covers the key return fields and purpose. Minor lack of details on full response structure prevents a 5.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details (none needed) and does not contradict any 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 retrieves the loyalty/rewards program details for the site, specifying the returned fields (program name, points currency, tier structure). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from siblings that retrieve other site data (e.g., get_site_info, get_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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 details many return fields (opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery, ratings, etc.) but omits behavior on errors (e.g., invalid slug) or authentication requirements. Since it's a read operation, destructive effects are not a concern.

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 is concise yet comprehensive, listing key output fields. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet points for readability.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return fields adequately. It does not mention that the response is a single object, but that is implied. Missing details about error responses or rate limits, but overall complete for the complexity level.

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

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

The only parameter 'slug' has a clear description with an example ('cafe-example'). Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining what the slug represents.

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 explicitly states the action 'Get full details' and the resource 'a specific place by its URL slug'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like search_places which is for searching, and list_* tools which list multiple items.

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 you have a specific slug, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_places. No guidance on prerequisites or 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?

Without annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns menu sections, dishes, descriptions, prices, and dietary labels, giving a clear picture of the output. No side effects or additional constraints are needed for a read-only 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: the first efficiently states purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous information, 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema or annotations, the description covers input source and output contents completely. No gaps in essential information.

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 well-described single parameter. The description adds context by specifying where to obtain the slug. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already describes the parameter adequately.

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 'food menu', and lists specific return contents (sections, dishes, prices, dietary labels). It distinguishes from siblings like search_dishes and list_categories by focusing on a single restaurant's menu.

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 use search_places or list_categories first to obtain the required place_slug, providing clear context and prerequisite steps. No explicit 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 minimally implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose sorting, pagination behavior (beyond limit), authentication 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?

Single sentence, no extraneous words, clearly conveys the 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?

Adequately describes a simple listing tool with one optional parameter. Could clarify the site scope and default ordering, but mostly 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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (limit), so the description adds no extra meaning. 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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves published reviews for a site, specifying the returned fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also list data (e.g., list_blog_posts, 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or context such as requiring a site identifier.

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns but does not discuss side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, the description is adequate but lacks depth on operational 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?

The description is two sentences, both front-loaded with key information. The first sentence lists all returned fields concisely; the second sentence explicitly states use cases. No superfluous words waste the agent's attention.

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 covers all necessary details: what data is returned (name, locale, domain, description, canonical URLs, local time, weather) and when to use it. No gaps remain for effective agent invocation.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides no documentation burden. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. Per rubric, zero parameters means baseline 4, and the description does not detract from this.

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 explicitly states the tool returns basic info about the neighborhood directory, including specific fields like name, locale, domain, canonical URLs, local time, and current weather. The verb 'Returns' and the clear listing of outputs make the purpose unmistakable, and the inclusion of time and weather distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or search 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?

Description provides explicit use case: 'Use this for any "what time is it there" or "what's the weather like" context.' This gives clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the tool's specificity reduces ambiguity.

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 return fields but omits sorting order, pagination details, and edge cases (e.g., empty results). Does not mention authentication 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?

Single sentence front-loading purpose and return fields. No wasted words, efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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 few parameters and no output schema. Description covers main use but lacks detail on sorting, error handling, or pagination behavior. Adequate for basic use but not comprehensive.

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 description does not add meaning beyond schema parameter descriptions. Both parameters are already well-described in 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 'list' and the resource 'recent published blog posts' with site context. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying 'Wix Blog' and listing return fields.

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 or when not to use. The purpose is clear but lacks context for selecting among sibling list tools.

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

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

Discloses key behaviors: services are listed for every venue (even those without booking systems), the meaning of bookableViaMcp, and that only venue services (with place_slug) can be used with create_booking. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full 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 a single paragraph of three sentences. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidelines, then return details. The third sentence is lengthy but contains necessary information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for return fields), but remains clear and 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 list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains return fields (name, description, price, duration, bookableViaMcp) and how to interpret bookableViaMcp. It addresses edge cases (venues without booking, directory's own services) and links to related tools (create_booking, search_places). No gaps remain.

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 provides detailed description of place_slug (100% coverage). The description adds extra context by contrasting the two usage modes (with/without place_slug) and linking to create_booking, going beyond the schema. However, since schema already covers the parameter well, the added value is moderate but meaningful.

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 price and duration. It distinguishes between listing venue services (with place_slug) and the directory's own services (without), and notes that only venue services work with create_booking. This differentiates it from sibling tools effectively.

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: pass place_slug from search_places for venue services, which is 'what you want in almost every case.' It also warns against omitting place_slug (directory's own services, usually absent) and explains the bookableViaMcp field for handling venues without online booking. Provides clear guidance on when to redirect users instead.

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 describes the returned data comprehensively (categories, labels, types, counts), and the verb 'returns' indicates a read operation, though not explicitly stated. Lacks explicit readOnly hint but sufficient given 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?

One sentence packed with relevant details: top-level groups, subcategories, labels, types, counts. No redundancy or wasted 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 and no parameters, the description fully explains what the tool returns, covering all key elements of the taxonomy. An agent can understand the output without additional information.

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 in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter information because there are none, which is acceptable. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the full category taxonomy with specifics like top-level groups, subcategories, localized labels, schema.org types, and live place counts. It is a specific verb (returns) and resource (category taxonomy), and no sibling tool overlaps.

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 for retrieving category structure of the directory site. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear and the tool has no parameters, making usage straightforward.

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 discloses key behavior: weather data for events within 7 days and live resolution for 'agora' filter. Missing details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but adequate given 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?

Three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, special feature, and parameter usage. No wasted words, front-loaded with main objective.

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 tool with 3 optional params and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return fields (date, venue, price, URL, weather) and filter semantics. 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 has 100% coverage, but description adds context for filter enum values, especially 'agora' meaning live resolution. Adds value 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?

The description clearly states it lists upcoming events with specific fields (date, venue, price, URL) and a weather forecast for events within 7 days. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on bookings, 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?

Provides concrete usage guidance via the `filter` parameter, especially for 'agora' resolving live. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention 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?

The description implies a read-only operation ('Get all...') with no side effects, which is sufficient given no annotations. It doesn't detail auth or rate limits, but for a simple list tool, 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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and structure, second provides usage context. No wasted 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?

The description lacks information about the return format (e.g., field names) and does not mention what happens when there are no FAQs. With no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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, so the schema is fully described. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline score of 4 applies for this case.

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 retrieves all FAQ questions and answers, grouped by category, and provides concrete examples like opening hours and policies. This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among 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?

The description explicitly says to use it for answering common questions and gives example topics. While it doesn't mention when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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 states that the tool returns form details (name, ID, field definitions), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unstated.

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: two sentences that provide essential information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by output details and usage guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists, what it returns, and when to use it (before submit_form). Sibling tools are diverse, but the description covers the tool's role effectively.

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 (schema coverage 100% trivially), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description uses no space on 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 action ('List') and the resource ('available contact/signup forms on this site (Wix Forms)'). It also specifies the returned data (form name, ID, field definitions). This distinguishes from siblings like submit_form by indicating that list_forms is the precursor to submission.

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 before submit_form to discover which fields to fill,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond submit_form.

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 that the tool lists guides (read operation) and that they are published by this site, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. Basic transparency is adequate 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 concise, consisting of two sentences that deliver the key information without extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and usage context.

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 lack of output schema, the description provides good context: it states the content (editorial guides, ranked places with notes) and usage scenario. However, it could briefly mention the return format or structure of the guides to be fully 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?

The only parameter, 'limit', has 100% schema coverage with a description in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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' and the resource 'curated editorial guides' ('best of' lists). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying editorial guides with ranked places and editorial notes, 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'The best source for "best X in this neighborhood" questions.' It implies the tool is ideal for finding recommendations but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like search_places.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, though 'list' implies reading. It adds useful context about FLASH offers having countdown deadlines, but does not disclose error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not 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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence covers purpose and return fields; the second adds a crucial detail about FLASH offers. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure 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 no output schema, the description effectively lists all returned fields, and explains the distinction between STANDARD and FLASH offers. It omits details like pagination ordering or error handling, but for a simple list tool with known parameters, it is nearly 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% with both parameters fully described. The tool description adds a bit of context ('FLASH offers have a countdown deadline') that reinforces the schema's description of the 'kind' parameter, but does not significantly extend it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does heavy lifting.

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 'active promotions and deals', and the context 'neighborhood directory'. It enumerates returned fields (discount label, promo code, CTA link, validity window, business/place), providing a precise and distinct purpose. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the 'neighborhood directory' scope and specific fields make its 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_products, list_events). There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites. The description implies usage for listing offers, but lacks comparative context among the many sibling list tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (name, description, price, billing cycle, perks, checkout URL). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention authentication requirements. While agents can infer safety, explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, then explains the parameter and finally lists return fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information. Very concise and well-structured.

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 only one optional parameter, no output schema, and 26 sibling tools, the description fully covers the needed context: two usage scenarios, parameter guidance, and return value fields. It is complete enough for an agent to select and use 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%, baseline 3. The description adds context beyond schema: it explains why `place_slug` is strongly recommended and what happens when omitted (directory's own plans vs venue plans). This added semantics justifies a score 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 clearly states it lists membership/subscription plans from Wix Pricing Plans. It specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'pricing plans', and distinguishes between two use cases: with a venue slug (venue-specific) and without (site-wide plans). This fully clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 tells the agent to pass `place_slug` from `search_places` for venue-specific plans, stating that is the desired case 'in almost every case'. It also warns that omitting it gives directory site's own plans, which most sites do not have. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and differentiates from potential 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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states return fields but does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The limit parameter is in schema but not discussed in 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 plus a return fields statement, concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, though could be restructured 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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It lists return fields but misses pagination, error handling, and usage context. Slightly incomplete.

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 descriptions for both parameters (q and limit). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'products in this site's store (Wix Stores)', and lists specific return fields (name, price, stock status, product type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blog_posts 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. With many sibling list tools, the description lacks context for appropriate usage, such as prerequisites or 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?

The description discloses the return fields (name, profile URL, category, metadata) and implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on pagination, default limit behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides moderate but incomplete transparency.

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, containing only two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return information. No unnecessary words or repetition; 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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, its scope, and its outputs. Minor omissions like pagination details or default limit are acceptable for a simple list tool, so it is nearly 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'limit', so the schema already documents it adequately. The description adds no further meaning or usage context beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score 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 specifies the tool as listing solo service-provider profiles without a fixed physical location, with examples (dog walkers, tutors, personal trainers) and a list of returned fields. This uniquely identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling list 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_booking_services or list_categories. The description implies it's for locationless providers but does not explicitly state when it is appropriate or not appropriate.

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 asynchronous flow, email confirmation, 24-hour expiration, and out-of-band restaurant confirmation. No hidden behaviors.

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 info front-loaded. First sentence states purpose, second explains key behavior, third gives user instructions. 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?

Given no output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers request flow, email process, expiration, and post-request steps. No obvious 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds meaningful context: email as recipient of confirmation link, place_slug from search_places, requestedAt as future ISO instant, partySize range 1-30. Adds value 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 'request a table at a restaurant' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_booking' by clarifying this is a non-confirmed request.

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 when to use (requesting, not confirmed), warns the restaurant is not notified, instructs user to check inbox and use real email, and implies alternative for confirmed booking.

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 covers behavioral traits: temporary hold, no payment until checkout, expiration, and limit constraints. The all-caps warning about the hold being temporary and not paid is very clear.

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 well-structured sentences. First states purpose and output, second highlights critical temporary nature in all caps, third adds constraints and exclusions. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important info.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input constraints, behavior, return value (checkout URL), lifespan of hold, and when not to use. 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by specifying the maximum total tickets (10) and ticket types (10) per reservation, which is not in the schema. This extra constraint helps an agent avoid errors.

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 'Hold tickets for an event' and 'return a checkout URL'. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it only works for events sold directly on this site, and for external events the alternative is the event's own ticketUrl.

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 describes when to use (events sold through Wix Events) and when not to (external services like Sympla, Ingresse, Sesc), providing the alternative directly. Also includes limit of 10 tickets and 10 ticket types per reservation.

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 behavior: nobody on guest list, confirmation email sent, link expires in 24 hours, RSVP only when clicked, and link deliberately not returned. This is comprehensive for the async confirmation flow.

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 purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or 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?

For a simple RSVP tool with async email confirmation, the description covers all behavioral aspects. The input schema fully documents parameters, and no output schema is needed. The description is complete given the tool's simplicity and context.

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 no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose of the email parameter. Parameter semantics are adequately covered by 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: RSVP to a free event on Wix Events. It uses a specific verb ('RSVP') and resource ('free event'), and the async nature distinguishes it from sibling tools like '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 explicit instructions: tell user to check inbox, use real address, and notes that confirmation link is not returned. It implies when to use (free events) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'reserve_event_tickets' for paid events.

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, but description fully discloses it searches every menu item, groups by dish, returns price, description, dietary labels, place URL, and lists most-served dishes when query 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?

Two sentences, first states purpose, second details behavior and examples. Very concise 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?

No output schema, but description explains return format thoroughly. Covers both usage modes. Complete for a search 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 examples and explains query omission behavior, but limit parameter is not elaborated 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 finds which restaurants serve a dish in a neighborhood, using specific verb 'Find' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_places, get_restaurant_menus, 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 says use for 'where can I eat X' questions and describes behavior without query. No explicit when-not, but 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 provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: typo-tolerance, accent-insensitivity, relevance ranking, precomputed open_now, delivery deep-link structure, and hour format. 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?

The description is detailed but efficient, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing filters and result structure. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains all return fields: open_now boolean, attributes array, delivery array (with platform and url), rating, and structured hours (day 0-6, time HHMM). Parameter usage is clear with 6 optional parameters well documented.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema: explains typo-tolerance for q, 'ALL must match' for attributes, the current-moment meaning of open_now, delivery object structure ({platform, url}), and common amenity slugs. Each parameter is enriched.

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 'Search for places (restaurants, cafes, shops, etc.)' with a specific verb and resource. The description distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_place' (specific place) or 'list_categories' (categories only) by emphasizing free-text search with filters.

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 detailed guidance on how to use filters (category, neighborhood, open_now, attributes) and the capabilities of the q parameter (accent-insensitive, typo-tolerant). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_place or list_categories.

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 itself must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'returns a submissionId on success' implying a write operation, but does not detail error states, idempotency, or permissions. Minimal but 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?

Two sentences, each essential: purpose and prerequisite. 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description mentions the return value (submissionId). It also references a required prerequisite tool. Could include error handling but adequate for a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameters come from list_forms and provides a concrete example for the 'fields' parameter, aiding correct invocation.

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 'submit a form on behalf of the user (Wix Forms)', specifying the verb (submit) and resource (form). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_forms which is a read operation.

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 get the formId and field keys', providing a clear prerequisite. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance.

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