MISSING

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context about the scope of the list, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the return payload, or mention any permissions or limitations. The verb 'List' implies safety, but the disclosure is otherwise thin.

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 the verb and scope front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition; every phrase adds meaningful qualification to what the tool lists.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently establishes what the tool returns and under what qualification. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not contrast with search_verified_capabilities or hint at the result shape, but the tool's simplicity keeps this gap small.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema already makes obvious. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource: capabilities currently executable by the MISSING product runtime using replay-verified provider recipes. It clearly separates listing from record_missing_capability_demand and resolve_capability, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_verified_capabilities.

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

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

The description gives useful context about what is listed ('currently executable', 'replay-verified provider recipes'), so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as search_verified_capabilities.

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 must carry the behavioral burden. It adds some transparency by stating that example_input is preserved as replay evidence for autonomous acquisition and implies the tool only records rather than resolves. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence semantics, idempotency, or any other runtime behavior.

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

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

The description is concise, with two sentences that both add value: the first states the core action, the second explains an optional parameter's purpose. Minor ambiguity around the capitalized 'MISSING' prevents a perfect score, but there is no fluff 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?

The tool has three parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, so a fuller description is needed. The current text leaves the required parameters unexplained and does not describe what a successful record returns or how duplicates are handled, making it incomplete for safe autonomous 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains example_input ('preserves non-sensitive caller data as replay evidence'). The required parameter 'intent' and the 'capability' parameter are left entirely undefined, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and format.

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 specific verb ('Record') and resource ('external capability that an agent needs but MISSING cannot currently resolve'), making the action and scope immediately clear. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like list_verified_capabilities and resolve_capability, which deal with already-verified or resolvable capabilities.

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

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

The description gives a clear usage context: use this tool when an agent needs an external capability that MISSING cannot currently resolve. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some routing to inference.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, this description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states important non-obvious behavior: the tool never directly executes the provider, it returns pricing details, and it is paid-only. It does not cover side effects or error conditions, but the main boundary between resolving and executing is transparently expressed.

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, with the primary function and constraints front-loaded. The key distinction—never executes the provider directly—earns its place and prevents a likely misunderstanding given the name and phrasing.

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 explains the high-level output but leaves gaps around required prerequisites, the exact binding between `input` and the request body, and how the system handles unverified or invalid capabilities. With no output schema and no annotations, this leaves the agent without sufficient detail for robust 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explains the meaning or expected shape of `capability` or `input`. The mention of an exact request body vaguely implies what `input` is, but there is no explicit guidance on how to build or interpret the 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 states a specific operation: resolve a replay-verified capability and return the canonical x402 endpoint, exact request body, and price, while clarifying that it does not execute the provider. This makes the resource, action, and key result clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_verified_capabilities.

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

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

It conveys substantive operational context: public execution is paid-only, and the tool acts only as a resolver, not an executor. However, it does not explicitly state when an agent should choose this over the sibling tools, nor does it describe when not to use it or how to prep condition against verified capabilities.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search', which implies a read operation, but it does not explain matching behavior, whether results are limited to verified capabilities, what happens when no capability is found, or any other operational details. There is no contradiction, but there is minimal added behavioral context.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the unexplained 'MISSING' placeholder makes it cryptic, and the sentence could have used the available space to state the search target more clearly.

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 search tool, the description is under-specified: it omits the search corpus, result behavior, output format, and how 'limit' affects results. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent has little guidance beyond the obvious meaning of 'search capabilities'.

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 clarify parameter meaning. It loosely maps 'query' to a natural-language task description, which is helpful, but it does not mention the 'limit' parameter or any constraints on the query. The description only partially compensates for the missing 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 identifies a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('executable capability'), and implies a natural-language query interface. However, the placeholder 'MISSING' obscures what is being searched, and the description does not mention 'verified' from the tool name. It is not a tautology, but the ambiguity lowers clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_verified_capabilities, record_missing_capability_demand, or resolve_capability. The natural-language phrasing implies a search use case, but no explicit context, exclusions, or sibling differentiation is provided.

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