leakledger-ota-recovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it modifies any state. The term 'evaluate' implies a non-destructive analysis, but this is not confirmed. No contradictions exist, but more transparency would be beneficial.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary jargon or repetition. It effectively communicates the core purpose without verbosity.

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 indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a risk score, a list of exceptions, a boolean), even though an output schema is noted. It also lacks context on how the 'context_json' parameter is used or what domain-specific exceptions entail. This incompleteness leaves the agent without sufficient information to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 includes 'record_json' and 'context_json' but provides no descriptions. The tool's description mentions 'record' and 'domain' but does not explain what data these parameters should contain, their format, or how they influence the evaluation. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter details.

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 'Evaluate one record for domain-specific exceptions and revenue/workflow risk,' providing a specific verb (evaluate) and resource (record) with a defined purpose. It distinguishes itself from a generic catalog tool, though it could be more specific about what constitutes an exception or risk.

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. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which this evaluation is appropriate. The description lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' information, making it ambiguous for an agent to choose this tool over others.

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 for explaining behavior, side effects, security, and return values. It discloses none of these. The description does not even clearly indicate whether the call is read-only or state-changing, making it behaviorally opaque.

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, but it is vastly under-specified. It does not front-load a clear action or resource; instead, it reads as a meta-prompt. This is under-specification, not welcome conciseness, because the sentence's meaning is ambiguous.

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?

Even though the tool has no parameters and there is an output schema present, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what the tool returns, why an agent should invoke it, or how it relates to other tools. The minimal complexity is offset by the complete lack of actionable 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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'input expectations' vaguely, but since the schema has no properties, there is no additional parameter information needed or supplied. The trivial schema coverage is complete.

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 'Describe this product domain, tools, and input expectations.' is phrased as an imperative/instruction rather than a clear statement of tool behavior. It does not explicitly say what the tool does (e.g., 'lists', 'returns', 'provides'), and it offers no distinction from the sibling tool 'evaluate_exception'. It is more than a tautology but remains vague about core 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Describe this product domain, tools, and input expectations' implies it could be used to understand the domain/tools, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are given. This qualifies as implied usage only.

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