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 explains the action (reporting) and vague outcome ('helps this capability get built'), but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or what happens to the report. Not misleading, but could be more transparent.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and optional input. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient guidance for an agent to use it correctly. It covers what to describe and what to optionally include. Lacking a note on success feedback, but overall 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?

With 0% schema description coverage per context, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'Describe the task' for the 'description' field and 'Optionally include the price per call' for 'would_pay_usdc'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title.

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: reporting a missing paid service or capability after a search failure. It uses specific verbs and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_services' by describing the context of use.

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 states when to use this tool: 'the search returned nothing, or the results did not actually do what you needed.' This provides clear usage context and distinguishes from the search sibling.

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 bears full responsibility. It states that the tool searches every known registry and returns specific fields, but it does not explicitly declare if the operation is read-only, idempotent, or mention potential side effects like rate limits or authentication requirements. The description adds some context but lacks full 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 a single paragraph that is well-structured, front-loading the main purpose, then usage guidelines, then parameter info. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting redundancy (e.g., 'any other pay-per-use endpoint' is already implied).

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 simple (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage), the description provides a complete picture: what it does, when to use it, what parameters mean, and what the return fields are (URL, price per call, payment details). It lacks return format details but that is acceptable without an output schema. The sibling tool is implicitly addressed.

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 adds meaning to max_price_usdc by mentioning it filters by max price in USDC with an example (0.01 = one cent/call). For the query parameter, it only implies it is a search term. The description adds some value but could provide more detail on query syntax or examples.

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 and compares paid API services that AI agents can purchase per-call. It specifies the resource (paid API services), verb (search/compare), and scope (across known service registries). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool report_missing_service by focusing on finding existing services 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 you need a capability you don't have, when a task requires an external API, when a resource responds 402 Payment Required and you want alternatives, or when the capability is a paid remote service. It also implies when not to use it (when you need to report a missing service, use the sibling tool).

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