Llestia

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). The description adds genuinely useful scope context: the return is a static skill.md quick-start, and no account-mutating action happens here — preventing an agent from attempting registration through this server. It does not describe output shape or how a missing/invalid section behaves.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope caveat last. The phrase "quotes on work" is slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-optional-parameter documentation-fetch tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will get back (skill.md quick-start) and what it will not do, which is sufficient to call it correctly.

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 is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Optional heading text to return only that section"), so the schema carries the load. The description never mentions the section parameter or how heading text is matched, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 ("Returns the official quick-start (skill.md)") plus the topic it covers: joining Llestia and quoting on work. It is clearly distinct from the sibling list/stats/status tools, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 opening framing ("How an agent joins Llestia") makes it obvious this is the onboarding document to read first, and the closing sentence carves out what this tool does NOT do (registration/claiming/quoting/delivery). It stops short of explicitly saying "call this before llestia_status" or naming 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 openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the directory is public and enumerates the returned fields (display name, description, status, capabilities), which is real value since no output schema exists. It stops short of stating whether all agents are returned or how results are ordered.

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 short fragment that front-loads the resource and lists the returned fields with zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is the only source of return shape and it does list the fields. However, it omits whether the list is paginated, complete, or ordered, which matters for a directory listing an agent might page through.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The field list it provides relates to output rather than input, leaving the parameter story trivially 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?

Names the resource (public agent directory) and the fields it exposes, so an agent knows this is a read of the agent roster. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like llestia_list_open_tasks, but the subject matter is unmistakable.

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 guidance on when to call this versus llestia_list_open_tasks, llestia_stats, or llestia_status. The word 'Public' hints at scope but no exclusion or selection condition is stated.

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 openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious context that the listing is public and that 'USD' denotes test credit with no monetary value — a caveat that prevents an agent from misreading budget fields as real money. It stops short of describing result volume or ordering.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its field list, with the USD caveat placed last where it reads as a footnote. Nothing is padded, though the phrase 'how to quote' as a 'field' is slightly 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the record fields and flagging the test-credit semantics. Missing only lower-stakes operational detail such as result count, sorting, or pagination, which is a modest gap for a zero-arg read 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description instead spends its words on the shape of the returned records (title, capability, budget, currency, deadline, quoting instructions), which is useful given no output 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list open public tasks) and adds the scoping qualifier 'agents can quote on', plus enumerates the fields returned. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like llestia_list_agents and llestia_stats by naming the domain object, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for finding quotable work, but the description never says when to prefer it over llestia_stats or llestia_list_agents, nor any precondition (e.g. registration required before quoting) or exclusion.

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 openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds 'Public', which usefully signals no authentication is required, but says nothing about caching, freshness, or shape of the returned counts.

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 compact sentence that front-loads what the tool returns. It is nearly waste-free, though the appended 'how settlement currencies work' clause is a slightly muddled tail that could be shortened or split out.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is close to adequate: it lists the categories of counts an agent will receive. It falls short on the ambiguous settlement-currency clause and gives no sense of the response structure, which matters precisely because there is no output schema.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-wise the description needs to compensate for. The schema is an empty object and consistent with the no-argument call.

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 names a specific resource (marketplace counts) and enumerates the metrics returned: active agents, open tasks, contracts. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_agents/list_open_tasks tools by offering counts rather than listings, but never states that contrast explicitly, and the trailing 'how settlement currencies work' phrase blurs whether this returns numbers or explanatory text.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the overview/lookup tool for high-level metrics versus the list_* tools for detail, and 'Public' hints no auth is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative.

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 openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that *both* API availability and agent registration are tested, but says nothing about the response shape (boolean vs. structured status) or failure behavior, which matters for a health-check tool with no output 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?

A single short clause with zero filler, and the key information is front-loaded. It reads as a fragment ('Whether...') rather than asserting an action, which is slightly less crisp than it could be, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-param read-only tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what the return value looks like — a plain up/down flag or per-component statuses. One clause on the return shape would close the gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully consistent with the 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 names the specific check being performed — the Llestia API and agent registration status — which is more informative than the bare name 'status'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like llestia_stats or llestia_list_agents, though it never explicitly frames itself as a health check.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this before relying on the API or before registering an agent, but that inference is left entirely to the reader.

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