delegacja

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: existing data under the token stays, and a wrong or expired key changes nothing. This goes beyond the annotation hints by explaining failure semantics and safety of the operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then gives the key format and safety guarantees, and closes with the verification tool. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

For a single-parameter activation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what input is needed, what happens on failure, and how to confirm success. There is no missing critical information for an agent 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?

The schema already documents the key parameter and its format with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying that the key must be issued at checkout for this server or the bundle, which clarifies validity requirements not present 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 a specific verb and resource: it 'turns Pro on' for the connection using a license key. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling license_status tool by saying license_status confirms the activation. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 clear context for use: the key must be an MCPL1.<payload>.<signature> issued at checkout for this server or the bundle. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but it does reference license_status as the confirmation path, giving the agent a sense of the workflow.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the JSON response contents and stating 'nothing changes,' reinforcing the read-only nature of the call.

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 dense sentences cover output, purpose, usage context, and side-effect guarantee. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information 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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return value. With no parameters, annotations covering safety, and a clear use case, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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 are zero parameters and the schema already fully documents that fact. The description explicitly says 'No arguments,' which is accurate and reinforces the schema without needing further elaboration.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Report') and a precise resource ('this endpoint's licence state for your token'), and enumerates the exact output fields: product, tier, reason, and checkout URL. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like license_activate.

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 explicitly states when to call it: 'Call it to explain a free-tier refusal.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly state 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 indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the result contains: per-day amount, total in the scheme's currency, partial-day fraction, and scheme-specific meal deductions. It also notes the tool is free and unlimited, which is additional practical context 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 concise and front-loaded with the core action and result composition. The 'Free and unlimited' sentence is a useful standalone note. It could be slightly more readable if the first sentence were split, but it contains no wasted content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value information; it names the main outputs but not the full result shape or how scheme-specific optional parameters like fiscal_year, late_evening, and lodging_nights affect the result. The rich input schema covers parameter semantics well, but for a 10-parameter tool with multiple scheme-specific behaviors, the description alone is not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning meal deductions and partial-day fractions, which loosely map to meals_provided and start/end. This meets the baseline but does not significantly augment 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate the daily travel allowance for one trip' and enumerates the key outputs (per-day amount, total in scheme currency, partial-day fraction, meal deductions). This makes it clear that this tool computes a per-trip allowance, distinguishing it from a sibling like perdiem_rates that would provide rate tables rather than a calculated allowance.

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 primary use case—calculating an allowance for one trip—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over perdiem_rates or perdiem_report. It also does not mention required inputs or conditions like needing a scheme, destination, and date range, leaving usage boundaries to inference.

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 all false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by stating the returned fields—authority, instrument, source URL, and effective date—and by saying the tool is 'Free and unlimited.' It does not explicitly discuss side effects, but 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation and there is no contrary 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action, the contained data, and the filtering options in three short sentences. There is no repetitive or extraneous wording, and every sentence adds relevant 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?

For a simple optional-parameter list tool, the description covers the main return contents, filtering capability, and operational characteristics. It does not explicitly say that omitting `scheme` returns all schemes, but the schema already documents that, and no output schema exists to describe further.

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 parameters are already well-described, including the enum values and country matching behavior. The description contributes a high-level 'filter by country or city' idea but does not add new parameter-level meaning 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List a scheme's bundled daily allowance rates' and clarifies the included provenance fields. The name and title are reinforced rather than merely restated, and the list purpose is clearly distinct from calculation/report siblings.

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 that this tool is for retrieving or listing rates with optional country/city filtering, and 'Free and unlimited' suggests no usage constraints. However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool versus perdiem_calc or perdiem_report, leaving alternatives to be inferred from sibling names.

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 establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it filters to saved trips, buckets by start date, reports in each scheme's currency, and embeds trip IDs behind figures. No contradictions 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 main sentence is dense, front-loaded, and contains only relevant information. The trailing 'Pro.' is an unexplained fragment that does not earn its place, but the overall description is still compact and well structured.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned figures and their grouping. Combined with complete parameter schema and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to invoke the report correctly; only explicit alternative routing and clarification of 'Pro.' are missing.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter already has a clear description (YYYY-MM formats, scheme enum with default 'all', traveller filter). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond this, so the 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 states a specific resource (saved trips) and the aggregation dimensions (scheme, calendar month, start date), plus the exact metrics returned (trips, days, subsistence, lodging). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like perdiem_rates or trip_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?

The usage context is implied: it is the reporting/aggregation option for trip data, as opposed to listing or calculating rates. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over trip_list, perdiem_calc, or perdiem_rates, and the final 'Pro.' hint is too ambiguous to serve as 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?

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value beyond those by explaining the quota side effect, refusal conditions, named blockers, and the 'nothing is written' guarantee on refusal. There is no contradiction with 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 core action and consequences are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the refusal behavior is covered in the second. The third sentence, 'Free and unlimited,' is somewhat vague and adds limited value, but the overall description remains tight and easy to scan.

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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers successful deletion, quota impact, refusal cases, and no-write behavior. It does not describe the response format, but that is less critical for a delete operation and no output schema is provided.

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% for the single required parameter, including the trip id format and partial-name matching behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a concrete operation ('Delete one saved trip') and its immediate effect ('free the free-tier slot it held that month'), making the resource and verb explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like trip_export, trip_list, and trip_record by the delete action and trip scope.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is applicable: deleting a trip to free a monthly slot. It also names explicit exclusion conditions (exported trips or trips with expenses booked are refused), which helps the agent avoid invalid calls. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but no alternative deletion tool exists.

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 useful side-effect note 'It writes nothing in the expense-tracker server; only mark_exported changes this trip', but this directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation because mark_exported can stamp exported_at on the trip. Since the description contradicts the annotations, the rubric requires a score of 1.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded with purpose and side-effect behavior. However, the trailing 'Pro.' is an unexplained fragment that adds no information and makes the description feel unfinished.

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, the description still communicates the core return shape (one or two payloads) and the main safety constraint. It does not enumerate the exact expense_add payload fields, but those are presumably defined by the referenced expense_add operation, and the schema already covers all parameters.

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?

All five parameters already have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: split_lodging changes the payload count, and mark_exported is the only path to mutation. It does not repeat the schema's field-by-field details, which 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 verb is precise: 'Return the exact expense_add arguments for a saved trip', and it describes the output shape with one subsistence payload and an optional lodging payload. This clearly distinguishes it from trip_record, trip_list, and trip_delete in the sibling set.

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 frames the tool as being for saved trips that need expense_add payloads, and it flags the mark_exported side effect, giving an agent enough context to decide when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended use case is clear.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value beyond that by stating the operation is 'Free and unlimited' and by disclosing what each listed trip includes, such as totals per currency.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output contents, and the second lists filters plus a cost/limit note. Every clause contributes useful information and 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?

For a filtered read-only list tool with rich annotations and no required parameters, the description is complete: it specifies returned fields, all filter dimensions, and the free/unlimited behavior. There is no missing information an agent would need to call and interpret the tool successfully.

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 parameters. The description restates the filterable fields in natural language and links 'from' and 'to' as a start date range, but it adds no new format or semantic detail 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 starts with a clear verb and resource, 'List saved trips,' and then specifies the exact fields returned and available filters. This makes the tool easily distinguishable from siblings like trip_delete, trip_record, and trip_export.

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 for retrieving and filtering trips, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as trip_export. There is clear context for what it does, but no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool routing.

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 the sparse annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a specific id format, refuses and names identical records without consuming a slot, and states the free quota of 5 trips per month. This gives the agent clear expectations for side effects, duplicate handling, and rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core operation and return value, and the second adds duplicate and quota behavior. Both sentences carry necessary information with no filler or repeated schema content.

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 high parameter count, the schema fully documents parameters, and the description covers the main non-schema facts: returned id format, duplicate refusal, and free usage limit. It is largely complete for invoking the tool, though it could more explicitly clarify the boundary with perdiem_calc or explain what happens when the monthly quota is exceeded.

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 does not explain individual parameters, but it does clarify that the traveller comes from the shared business profile by default, which lightly reinforces the schema's own default. No extra parameter semantics beyond the schema are provided.

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 action ('Calculate a trip and save it under a name'), the resource (a trip record), and discloses the returned id format ('TRIP-YYYY-NNNN id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trip_list, trip_export, and trip_delete, since it is the creating/persisting operation.

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 when to use the tool: when you want to calculate and save a trip, and it notes the 5-trip monthly free limit and duplicate refusal. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as perdiem_calc (which might only calculate without saving) or explain when not to use this tool.

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