Invisible Exit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It defines the output concept but does not disclose the return format, parameter requirements, or edge-case behavior. The verb 'Calculate' suggests a read-only operation, but details like handling missing inputs are unaddressed.

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 action ('Calculate') and the resource ('freedom number'). It contains no filler or redundant 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 two-parameter calculator, the description plus schema is largely complete. It explains the output concept and the optionality of leaving a job, though it could clarify the exact return format and whether both parameters are required.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional syntax or meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses the specific verb 'Calculate' and names the resource 'freedom number', defining it as the monthly recurring revenue needed to cover living expenses and optionally leave a job. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_side_business_guides and validate_idea.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool—when a user wants to calculate a freedom number from salary and monthly expenses. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or mention exclusions, such as scenarios where another tool might be more 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Search ... by topic', implying a read operation, but fails to mention return format, data source, or any side effects. Significant gaps remain.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, but could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description falls short. It does not explain the return format, how to formulate queries, or any limitations, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indicates the 'query' parameter is a topic, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type. However, it does not specify format, examples, or expected values.

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

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

The description clearly states it searches side-business guides and micro-SaaS playbooks by topic, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings 'search_freedom_calculator' and 'validate_idea' by being about guides/playbooks, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'by topic', with no context on prerequisites, exclusivity, or comparative situations.

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 bears full responsibility for disclosing safety, auth, and side effects. It only describes what the tool does (validate and return estimates) but does not state whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that conveys the core functionality, inputs, and outputs without filler. It is appropriately brief and easy to parse.

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 annotations and output schema, the description should cover more context. It fails to address how results are presented, what 'scored blueprints' entails, or any limitations. For a two-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves several unknowns.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'idea' is a micro-SaaS idea to be scored against blueprints, which adds meaning. However, the 'industry' parameter receives no elaboration, and no format hints are provided for either field. The description partially fills the gap but is incomplete.

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 validates a micro-SaaS idea against 500+ scored blueprints, returning industry fit, revenue potential, and time-to-launch estimates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_freedom_calculator and search_side_business_guides, which are search-focused.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose implies validation rather than searching, but alternatives are not mentioned. The agent receives minimal context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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