foragex402

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 action is reporting (non-destructive and helpful) but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or what happens after submission (e.g., no confirmation or guarantee of action). This is adequate but leaves some behavioral uncertainty.

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 short, efficient paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and provides necessary details without any superfluous words. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

Given the tool is a simple reporting function with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage triggers, and parameter guidance. It misses mentioning any post-submission behavior (e.g., confirmation message), but overall it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that 'description' should describe the task, and 'would_pay_usdc' is an optional price per call. This goes beyond the schema's basic type info, though it could be more specific about length or format constraints.

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's purpose: reporting a paid service or capability that was not found in any registry. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_services' by explicitly stating when to use this tool (after search returned nothing or results were inadequate).

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 on when to use the tool (after failed search) and what to describe (the task and optionally price). It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tool is mentioned in the context, and the description implies this is for missing capabilities after search failure.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool searches every known service registry in one query and returns service details, and mentions optional filtering by price. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior with no results. Still, it provides adequate transparency for a search 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 multi-sentence but every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, output details, and optional parameter. It is front-loaded with the core action. While not overly verbose, it could be slightly more concise by combining the use-case list. Overall, it is well-structured and no redundant sentences.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the input semantics and output fields (URL, price, payment details). It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a search tool with low complexity, this is sufficient. It misses stating whether the tool requires authentication, but that is often implicit.

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

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' refers to the needed capability (e.g., 'web search' or 'file conversion') and describes 'max_price_usdc' as an optional filter with example value ($0.01). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more precise about query 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 clearly states it finds and compares paid API services, lists example categories (data feeds, web search, etc.), and specifies the output (URL, price per call, payment details). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'report_missing_service' by focusing on searching existing registries rather than reporting missing ones.

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 lists when to use this tool: when needing a capability not available, when a task requires an external API, when a 402 Payment Required response is received and alternatives are needed, or when a paid remote service is preferable over an installable tool. This provides clear guidance and distinguishes from the sibling tool.

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