AgentXM

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it discloses the constraint dimensions (latency, cost per success, works count), that results are ranked with a Fit boost, and that a query_id is returned which should feed report_outcome. It does not state permissions/auth requirements for the call itself, rate limits, or whether results are cached/stale.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then constraints, then the stack/profile_key hint, then the report_outcome handoff. Every clause carries information, though the telegraphic "Constraints: ..." fragment is slightly cryptic and "a profile_key from the site" assumes out-of-band knowledge.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the core workflow and most non-obvious filters, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However caller and tenant_key are undocumented in both schema and description, limit is never mentioned, and no auth or failure behavior is described.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameters: auth enumerations (any|none|oauth), transport enumerations (any|streamable-http|sse), max_latency_ms, max_cost_per_success_usd, min_works, plus the stack format with an example and the stack-vs-profile_key choice. It leaves caller, tenant_key, limit and task completely unexplained, which are real gaps at 11 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?

"Ranked agents for a task" states the resource (agents) and the implicit verb (find/rank) with the ranking criterion (task fit), which is enough to separate it from register_agent, verify and report_outcome. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than an explicit verb+resource sentence, and it never names a sibling as an alternative.

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 gives concrete usage context: which constraint filters exist, that passing a comma-separated stack yields a Fit boost, and that the agent must retain query_id and call report_outcome afterwards. There are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, and the choice between stack and profile_key is left partly ambiguous ("or").

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 full burden and does well: it discloses immediate verification, that a scorecard URL and claim token are returned, and that a tenant_key scopes the agent as private. Missing only edge behaviors like idempotency or re-registration handling.

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?

Four dense sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the detection, return, and privacy details in priority order.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully spelled out, and the description still names them. For a mutation/registration tool with no annotations, it covers the important behavioral points; only idempotency details are missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains 'kind' (auto with /mcp probing, mcp_remote, a2a, hosted) and tenant_key, but leaves name, contact, and description undocumented beyond self-evident naming.

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?

Specific verb (Register) and resource (an agent) with the key input (by URL) stated immediately. It distinguishes the action from siblings like find_agents/verify implicitly by framing it as registration, though it never names those siblings to route between.

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?

Implies when to use it (you have an agent URL to register) and explains the 'auto' detection path, but offers no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against verify/find_agents/report_outcome.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the query_id dependency, but says nothing about side effects, idempotency of repeated reports, whether the agent must already be registered, or what the report feeds into (metrics, ranking, billing).

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

This is a 7-parameter write tool with no annotations; an output schema covers return values, but the description omits the effect of the write, validation expectations, and the relationship to register_agent and verify. Not enough for an agent to call it confidently in edge cases.

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, yet it only explains where query_id comes from. The other six fields (agent, success, cost_usd, duration_ms, note, reporter) are left entirely to name inference, including ambiguous ones like reporter and agent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reporting the outcome of a find_agents result. It anchors itself to a named sibling, but never clarifies how it differs from verify or what 'how it went' concretely encompasses beyond the required fields.

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 prerequisite ('Requires the query_id from that call') makes the intended sequence after find_agents clear, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no when-not guidance and no disambiguation from the sibling verify, which an agent could easily confuse with outcome reporting.

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 behavioral burden and mostly drops it. 'Now' hints at immediate execution, but nothing is said about whether this mutates agent state, blocks or runs async, requires permissions, or is safe to repeat — all critical for a verification trigger.

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?

Two short sentences, action first and trigger second, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly achieved by omitting needed detail rather than by editing.

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?

An output schema covers return values, so that gap is forgivable. What remains uncovered is the substance: the identity format of the sole required parameter, and the behavior of the verification run itself, are both absent for a state-changing tool with zero annotations.

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 coverage is 0%: the single required 'agent' string is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never says whether it is an ID, a name, or a slug, and that is the one thing an agent must get right to call this successfully.

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?

It names a verb ('re-run verification') and a resource ('agent'), so the agent knows this triggers a re-check on a specific agent. But 'verification' is never defined — what gets verified, and how it differs from what report_outcome or register_agent already produce, is left implicit.

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?

'Use after a release' gives one concrete trigger condition, which is more than nothing. There are no exclusions and no named alternatives, so the agent gets a hint about timing but no rule for choosing this over report_outcome.

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