Apiosk

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states basic action. Does not disclose what happens on duplicate, limits, or authorization needs.

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?

One short sentence, no fluff, but too minimal to provide sufficient context. Could be expanded without being verbose.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and multiple modes, the description is severely incomplete. No explanation of return values or mode behavior.

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 only 20%; description does not clarify mode, label, or limits beyond the schema. Does not compensate for low coverage.

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 action (create or import) and the resource (managed Apiosk wallet). It distinguishes from sibling tools like apiosk_list_wallets and apiosk_delete_wallet.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apiosk_create_wallet_api_key. Lacks context for choosing between create and import modes.

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 present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates creation (mutation) but does not mention idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or consequences like revoking existing keys. The one sentence lacks essential 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 sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is too brief to be helpful. Conciseness is positive, but it sacrifices valuable information.

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?

With no output schema, 5 parameters (1 required), and no annotations, the description fails to cover essential aspects like return value, side effects, error conditions, or parameter interdependencies. It is inadequate for an agent to use correctly without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only private_key described). The description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters (name, wallet_id, private_key, expiration_days, revoke_existing). It does not explain their roles beyond what the schema barely provides.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'API key / connect token for a managed wallet'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like apiosk_create_wallet (create a wallet) and apiosk_delete_wallet_api_key (delete).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apiosk_update_wallet_api_key or apiosk_create_wallet_connect_string. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose whether existing tokens are revoked, authorization needs, or rate limits. 'Rotate or create' is ambiguous without explanation of difference.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with verb and purpose. Could be more structured but highly concise.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Lacks information on return value format, parameter roles, and behavioral nuances like rotation vs creation.

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 only 25% (only private_key has description). The tool description does not explain wallet_id, token_name, or revoke_existing. Does not clarify how parameters relate to rotate vs create behavior.

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?

Clearly states the tool rotates or creates a connect token for a managed wallet and returns the new connect string. Distinguishes from sibling tools like apiosk_create_wallet (creates wallets) and apiosk_create_wallet_api_key (creates API keys).

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 on when to rotate vs create, or when to use this tool over alternatives like apiosk_create_wallet_api_key. Lacks mention of prerequisites or context.

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 must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Delete', implying destructive action. It does not explain consequences (e.g., irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects) beyond the obvious.

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, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core function without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It omits crucial context like success/failure responses, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens to related data, leaving the agent underinformed.

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, and the description adds no meaning for the 'wallet_id' parameter. The agent learns nothing about identifier format, source, or constraints beyond the schema's type.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'wallets', specifying the scope as 'signed-in user's wallets'. It distinctively conveys the tool's function, differentiating it from sibling tools like create or update.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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?

The description adds the behavioral trait of permanence, which is useful, but lacks other details like authentication needs or side effects. With no annotations, this provides minimal transparency.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, but could add more value without being verbose.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete for safe agent use, missing error handling and return information.

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 fails to explain the meaning or source of key_id and wallet_id, offering no additional semantics beyond their names.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'managed wallet API key' with the effect 'permanently', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or list.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or effects on other resources, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description does not add behavioral context such as mutability, side effects, or permissions. With annotations present, the description is neutral but misses an opportunity to clarify behavior beyond the annotation.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. While efficient, it could be slightly more structured without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite 5 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description provides no details about the execute envelope, return values, or how parameters like operation and path_params interact. The brevity leaves significant gaps for a complex tool.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'executes by slug', which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 executes any Apiosk API by slug via the /execute contract, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific API operations like creating or deleting wallets.

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 given on when to use this generic executor versus the specific sibling tools (e.g., apiosk_create_wallet). The description lacks context on prerequisites or alternatives.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'explore one group at a time'), but does not detail pagination, return format, or other traits beyond what annotations provide.

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, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It prioritizes brevity over comprehensiveness, omitting parameter explanations and behavioral specifics. It is front-loaded but under-informative for a tool with six parameters.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'listing groups' are, how parameters interact, or what the return value looks like. Annotations cover safety but not usage completeness.

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 only 17% (only 'search' has a description). The description fails to explain any of the six parameters, including sort, limit, order, offset, and listing_type. For low coverage, the description should compensate, but it provides no parameter guidance.

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: 'Browse Apiosk listing groups and explore one group at a time before narrowing with search.' This specifies a verb ('browse') and resource ('listing groups'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'apiosk_search', indicating a workflow sequence.

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 implies usage context: use this tool for initial browsing before applying search. It contrasts with 'apiosk_search' by suggesting exploration before narrowing. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or list alternative tools beyond search.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing it as a safe read operation. The description adds context about the return content (full detail and agent metadata), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or response size.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose and what is returned, leaving no major gaps for a lookup operation.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the slug parameter, including an example. The description does not add any new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches full listing detail and agent metadata for a specific slug, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apiosk_explore or apiosk_search, which could cause ambiguity.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for a specific slug), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or idempotence. The tool's read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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, which is concise but at the expense of missing important details. It could be more informative without losing brevity.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to specify what constitutes 'recent', pagination details, or the response structure.

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, and the tool description does not explain the meaning of any parameters (wallet_id, page, limit). This forces the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 fetches recent transactions and activity for a single wallet, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_wallets or create_wallet. However, 'activity' is vague and could be specified further.

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. With many sibling tools, this omission makes it harder for an agent to decide.

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?

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying what is reported (runtime status and gateway base URL), providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

A single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the verb 'report'. Every word earns its place.

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 lacks detail on the output format or fields. Without an output schema, the agent needs to know what the status response contains beyond just 'status' and 'base URL'. Partially 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (none). The description correctly adds no parameter information, as none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 reports runtime status and gateway base URL, with a specific verb and resource. No siblings serve a similar health-check purpose, so differentiation is not needed.

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 context of a health check tool is clear, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, among siblings, it is the only health-related tool, so usage is implied.

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the scope of topics covered but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations indicate. It aligns with annotations.

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?

A single long sentence enumerating many topics. It is front-loaded with purpose but could be more concise. Acceptable for a help tool.

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 a simple interface (1 optional enum parameter, no output schema). The description covers the tool's purpose and main topics, which is sufficient for the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with an enum parameter and description. The description provides extra guidance on one specific topic ('rails'), adding value beyond the schema.

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 'Explain what Apiosk MCP is' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform actions like create, delete, or execute.

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 implies use when needing explanation about Apiosk MCP topics. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling action-oriented tools provides clear differentiation.

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 'List' (implying read-only) but gives no details on behavior, authentication, errors, or output format.

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 efficient sentence, but it lacks critical context. It is front-loaded but insufficiently informative for the overall completeness needed.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, prerequisites, or how connect tokens differ from API keys. It is incomplete for effective use.

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% for the single parameter, and the description does not mention or explain the parameter, leaving the agent without any guidance on its value.

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 resource ('API keys / connect tokens') for a managed wallet. It clearly distinguishes from sibling create/delete/update actions.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings exist but are not mentioned, and there is no when-not or prerequisite information.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirement but does not mention pagination, limits, or behavior if no wallets exist. For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but minimal.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, every word adds value. Excellent conciseness.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose and auth. Could mention return format, but overall sufficient for a simple list without complex behavior.

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?

No parameters in input schema (coverage 100%), so description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 applies per guidelines.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'managed Apiosk wallets' with scope 'signed-in user's', distinguishing from sibling tools like apiosk_create_wallet or apiosk_delete_wallet.

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?

Description provides auth requirement context ('Requires an Apiosk dashboard session'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like apiosk_explore or apiosk_search.

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?

Discloses cost ($0.01) and that it is metered, but no annotations (all false) and the description does not reveal side effects, authorization needs, or what happens when the default help operation is executed. For a generic execution tool, more transparency is needed.

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?

Description is a few sentences but somewhat repetitive ('Paid actions imported...' and 'metered agent action'). Could be more concise and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (0 params, no output schema) and presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what actions can be executed or how to use the tool effectively. Missing key context like available operations.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (trivial). Description adds no parameter information, but baseline 3 is appropriate since no parameters require explanation.

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 it executes paid actions via Apiosk's uniform contract, but it's vague about what specific actions it handles. The default operation is apiosk_help, but there is a sibling tool named apiosk_help, causing confusion. It does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like apiosk_execute or apiosk_help.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. Mentions a default operation but does not explain usage context or when not to use it.

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'Fetch', consistent with read-only behavior. No additional behavioral traits disclosed (e.g., error handling, response size limits). With annotations present, the bar is lower, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words. No redundancy. Every word earns its place. Front-loaded with the action.

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 tool complexity is low (1 param, no nested objects, no output schema, safety covered by annotations), the description is complete enough. It could benefit from a brief note on typical use case, but it's adequate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states for the 'slug' parameter. Both say it's an Apiosk API slug.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fetch full listing detail and agent metadata for a specific Apiosk API slug.' It specifies the verb 'fetch', the resource 'full listing detail and agent metadata', and the scope 'specific Apiosk API slug'. This distinguishes it from siblings like apiosk_get_api and apiosk_explore.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or recommend sibling tools for different needs.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about returning a guide tailored to the current auth, disclosing behavioral traits beyond safety (e.g., no side effects, informational).

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 sentences convey purpose, output, and parameter usage efficiently with 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?

For a read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (buyer and provider guides) and parameters. It is complete for the use case.

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 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds meaning by explaining how 'slug' scopes buyer guidance and 'role' selects a side, going beyond the schema's enum and description.

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 explains how to pay through the Apiosk gateway and returns two guides (buyer and provider). It distinguishes from sibling tools like apiosk_execute and apiosk_help by specifying its unique 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?

The description provides guidance on using the 'slug' parameter to scope buyer guidance and 'role' to pick a side, implying when to use this tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with siblings but is clear enough.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond being the primary 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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage priority. No unnecessary 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?

For a search tool with 6 parameters fully described in schema and no output schema, the description covers core functionality adequately, though it lacks details on response format or pagination behavior.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions searching by capability, price, or category, which aligns with parameters but adds no significant new meaning.

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 action (search/browse) and resource (Apiosk catalog). It also implies primary usage, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'apiosk_explore'.

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 explicit guidance to use this tool first when searching for APIs by capability, price, or category. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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 must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Update' but doesn't disclose whether the update is partial or full, if permissions are required, if it's synchronous, or what side effects occur (e.g., impacts on active connections). This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Every word contributes to stating the tool's capability. Perfectly concise.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Missing critical context: idempotency, return values, validation rules, error conditions, and relationship to other wallet operations. The description does not help the agent understand the full scope of the tool.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It groups 'label, status, display metadata, or spending limits', which maps to some parameters (label, status, daily_limit_usdc, per_tx_limit_usdc, color, icon) but leaves details like data types, formats, and constraints unaddressed. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 action 'Update' and the resource 'wallet'. It lists specific updatable fields (label, status, display metadata, spending limits), distinguishing it from sibling tools like apiosk_update_wallet_api_key. However, 'display metadata' is vague, preventing a perfect score.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete wallet). No prerequisites, limitations, or conditional logic mentioned. The description implies general usage but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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 provided; description lists actions but does not explain combined behavior, side effects, permissions, or irreversibility (e.g., revoke). Fails to disclose what happens when multiple actions are specified.

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?

Single sentence is highly concise, but at the expense of completeness. No wasted words, but lacks structure and front-loading of critical information.

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?

With 5 parameters, 3 actions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not specify optionality, interplay of parameters, or return value, leaving significant gaps for agent 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%; description only hints at actions but does not map parameters to their roles (e.g., name for rename, revoke boolean, expiration_days for extend). Parameter meanings are left ambiguous.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Rename, revoke, or extend' and resource 'existing managed wallet API key', distinguishing it from create and delete sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use vs alternatives; implied usage for existing keys but lacks exclusions or context for when to prefer this over other tools.

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?

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds cost per call and default operation, but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether transcription is synchronous or asynchronous, response format, or idempotency. The agent is left guessing about the tool's behavior beyond the basic function.

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 very concise: three short sentences that are front-loaded with the essential purpose, followed by cost and contract details. No unnecessary information, each sentence earns its place.

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 provides basic context (speech-to-text, cost, default operation) but lacks information about the required audio URL format, the list of available features (e.g., language detection, sentiment analysis), and the return value structure. Given the parameter complexity and no output schema, more detail would be helpful.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, offering no extra value for parameter semantics.

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 'Speech-to-text transcription via AssemblyAI', specifying the verb (transcribe) and resource (audio), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are either Apiosk admin tools or other distinct APIs (e.g., finnhub, ipdata).

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 implies the tool is for speech-to-text transcription but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, but no exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds cost per call ($0.06) and the default operation, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or specific behavioral traits like pagination or response formats. The added context is modest.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose and key details (cost, default operation, execution contract). Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the tool's purpose and a few operational details, but given the potential complexity of Finnhub's API (multiple data types), it omits listing available operations or explaining how to select them beyond the schema. The lack of output schema is not compensated by description of return values. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete for a versatile data API.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (input, query, operation, path_params). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond mentioning the default operation, which is already implied by the operation parameter's description. Thus, no significant value added beyond the schema.

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 provides 'Real-time stock quotes, company fundamentals, news, earnings, analyst ratings and insider data' from Finnhub, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover weather, IP geolocation, or generic API execution. The reference to default operation 'news' further clarifies typical usage.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The only contextual hint is the default operation, but no comparative advice is given.

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?

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds cost per call ($0.09), default operation (lookup), and execution via Apiosk contract, which are behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: stating what it does, providing cost/slug, and explaining execution. 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?

The description covers cost and execution, but with 4 parameters and no output schema, some guidance on operation selection or return format would improve completeness. It's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 does 'IP geolocation + threat intelligence lookup', specifying the verb (lookup) and resource (IP). This distinguishes it from siblings like ipgeolocation by including threat intelligence.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives among siblings. It implies usage through its purpose but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other IP lookup tools.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds cost per call and default operation, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or operational quirks.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It includes relevant technical details (slug, cost, default operation) without unnecessary 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should hint at what the tool returns (e.g., location data). It mentions 'security data' but does not elaborate. Common use cases or limitations are absent, leaving gaps for a general-purpose agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description notes 'Default operation: ipgeo', which adds a minor detail beyond the schema's description of the operation parameter, but does not significantly enrich the meaning of any parameter.

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 provides 'accurate IP geolocation with optional security data', specifying a concrete verb-resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'ipdata' which likely offers similar functionality.

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 like ipdata or other geolocation services. The description lacks context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds cost per call ($0.06) and the fact it uses Apiosk's /execute contract, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what the 'tile' operation entails. It provides moderate supplementary context beyond annotations.

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 four sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence provides relevant information (purpose, slug, cost, default operation, execution contract). No extraneous content, but could be slightly more efficient by merging the Apiosk execution detail.

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 no output schema, the description fails to describe what the tool returns (e.g., geocoding results or directions data). It mentions 'default operation: tile' but does not explain tile output. For a tool with 4 optional parameters and multiple potential operations, the description is underspecified in terms of expected response and operation semantics.

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 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds valuable nuance: how the 'input' object maps to query parameters for GET/HEAD, the optional 'query' override, and path parameter handling. This clarifies parameter interaction beyond the schema alone.

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 provides 'Geocoding and directions from Mapbox,' which is a specific verb (geocoding, directions) and resource (Mapbox). It also mentions 'Default operation: tile' for further specificity. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'openweather' or 'serper', it does not explicitly contrast with similar mapping tools if any exist.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions cost per call and default operation but does not state prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'apiosk_execute' suggest a generic execution pattern, but no differentiation is offered.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds cost per call and default operation, which are useful but not critical behavioral details. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it includes billing and technical slug information which, while relevant, could be considered noise. Still, it is concise overall.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should provide hints about the return data format or key fields. It does not. It also fails to explain how to specify location (e.g., city name) despite parameters like input and path_params being flexible. The tool is moderately complex with nested objects, and the description leaves critical gaps.

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 100%, meaning all four parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds only the default operation context for the operation parameter, which is marginal. No parameter information beyond schema is provided, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves 'Current weather, forecast and One Call data from OpenWeather.' It is specific about the resource and data types. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling weather API tool (weatherapi), which reduces clarity for an AI agent deciding between similar options.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a default operation ('current') which informs usage for the current weather case, but lacks any when-not-to-use or comparative context with siblings like weatherapi.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds cost per call and default operation, but does not detail behavior like rate limits or error handling beyond the schema.

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 succinct, front-loading the purpose, and every sentence adds relevant information without waste.

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 no output schema and 4 optional parameters, the description adequately covers the core functionality and cost. It lacks details on output format or error responses, but the annotations provide safety assurances.

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 100%, but the description provides minimal extra context—only noting the default operation 'search' and the behavior of 'input' for GET/HEAD. This adds some value beyond the schema, but not significantly.

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 'Google search results via the Serper API', specifying both the verb (search) and resource (Google search results). It also differentiates from sibling tools that are either other APIs or wallet management tools.

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 implies usage for obtaining Google search results but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like apiosk_search or provide scenarios for when not to use it.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, not destructive), the description adds cost per call and the default operation, which are useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like response format, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The added information is moderate in value.

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 short (two sentences) but front-loads a non-essential detail (Apiosk slug) instead of the core purpose. While not verbose, it could be more efficient by directly stating the tool's action.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of shipping options). The agent lacks context on expected outcomes, making it harder to decide if the tool meets the need. The description is incomplete for this complexity level.

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 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds only a global note about camelCase/snake_case acceptance, which is a minor addition. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the tool's description does not compensate for any schema gaps.

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 mentions 'Default operation: shipments/options' which hints at retrieving shipping options, but it does not explicitly state the tool's core function (e.g., 'Get shipping rates' or 'Query available shipping options'). The focus on Apiosk contract mechanics obscures the primary purpose, making it moderately clear but not explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., other API tools or apiosk_execute). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context-specific scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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?

The description claims 'Send SMS' (a write operation) while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a clear contradiction, making the description misleading about behavioral traits.

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 short but includes non-essential details like 'Apiosk slug' and cost, which could be omitted. It is front-loaded but could be more concise.

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?

With no output schema and a significant contradiction, the description lacks completeness. It fails to explain return values or resolve the behavioral inconsistency.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline.

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 sends SMS and lists messages via Twilio Programmable Messaging, providing a specific verb-resource pairing. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools, though none are Twilio-specific.

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 mentions default operation and cost per call, implying usage context, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives.

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool uses Apiosk's uniform /execute contract and costs $0.105 per call, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or authentication.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The cost and Apiosk contract details are relevant, though the 'Apiosk slug' line may be unnecessary for the AI agent. Overall efficient.

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 no output schema and a generic input schema (common to all Apiosk tools), the description does not explain return values or response format. However, the weather domain is familiar, and the annotations provide sufficient safety context. Completeness is adequate but not rich.

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 100%, so parameters are fully defined in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning for individual parameters (e.g., 'input', 'query', 'operation', 'path_params'), merely mentioning the default operation. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides current and forecast weather from WeatherAPI.com, with a default operation of 'current'. It identifies the resource (weather data) and the action (current and forecast), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling weather APIs like openweather.

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 includes cost and default operation but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sibling weather tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, limits, or exclusion criteria.

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