Beacon - verified-merchant index for AI shopping agents

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that paid placement never affects ranking, ranking_basis is stated, and every result includes ships_to states, best_price, and evidence. It also describes the strict compliance mode. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or have any side effects, but the nature of the tool implies it.

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 well-structured with clear bullet points for arguments. It is fairly concise, though slightly verbose. The core purpose is 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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides substantial context about tool behavior, parameter usage, and result contents. It explains the strict compliance mode and that results carry needed fields. However, it omits explanation for the 'ready_only' parameter.

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 coverage (no parameter descriptions in schema), the description adds detailed meaning for 8 of 9 parameters, including explanations for category, ship_to, require_age_gate, limit, optimize_for, and the strict compliance trio. However, the 'ready_only' parameter is not described in 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 first sentence clearly states the tool ranks merchants based on honest signals for purchase fulfillment. It distinguishes from siblings like get_merchant_view (single merchant detail) and search_offerings (searching offerings).

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 finding merchants that can fulfill a purchase, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions 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?

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, or error handling beyond the input 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 sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and scope, with 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 simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, but lacks details on behavior and error cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not add meaning to the merchant_id parameter beyond its name and type in 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 uses 'Full agent view' to indicate comprehensive coverage, and explicitly lists 'record + offerings + capabilities + evidence', distinguishing it from more specific sibling tools like search_offerings and verify_capability.

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 this tool is for holistic merchant information, and sibling tool names suggest more targeted alternatives, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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. It only states it returns counts, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention safety, idempotency, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 a single sentence with no fluff, appropriate for a simple tool. However, it could be structured to separate the verb from the output list for better clarity.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, interpretation, or any constraints. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 no parameters, so per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what the output includes (counts of various entities), 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides graph coverage stats with specific counts (registry entries, merchants, offerings, capabilities). It uses a specific verb 'Graph' indicating an action, and the output is distinct from sibling tools which focus on searching or fetching individual entities.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over siblings or any preconditions. It lacks any context on appropriate scenarios.

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 only hints at output joining data but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. The agent lacks critical behavioral cues.

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 11-word sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail. It front-loads the purpose but omits important context. Appropriate length given minimalism, but space is not well-used.

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 3 parameters with no documentation, no annotations, and sibling tools requiring differentiation, the description is incomplete. The presence of an output schema helps, but the tool is under-documented for reliable agent 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% with no parameter descriptions. The description only mentions 'category' implicitly, ignoring 'limit' and 'in_stock_only'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 it finds offerings matching a category, with join to merchant and capabilities. The verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like find_best_merchant or get_merchant_view, though no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 category-based search for offerings, but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives among siblings. Context signals are not leveraged.

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 to fall back on, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It uses the word 'verify' which hints at a read-only check, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has any side effects. No information about error handling or edge cases is given.

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—a single sentence of 11 words that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with an illustrative example. No superfluous information is included.

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 simple verification tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic action and parameter values but omits any mention of return type (e.g., boolean, status message) or error scenarios. This incompleteness could hinder an agent interpreting the result.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds examples for the 'capability' parameter ('age_gate_21', 'ships_to_US-FL'), clarifying expected values. However, the 'merchant_id' parameter receives no additional context, leaving its format or source unspecified.

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 'verify' and the resource 'merchant capability', with concrete examples like 'age_gate_21' and 'ships_to_US-FL' that illustrate the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., find_best_merchant, search_offerings) by focusing on verifying a specific capability rather than finding or browsing merchants.

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, nor are there any conditions or prerequisites mentioned. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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