Valor Services & Contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'Approved' qualifier and content scope, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format or data freshness. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with 'Approved Valor company facts,' and every listed item adds relevant scope. There is no filler or repetition.

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 reference tool, the description provides adequate context about what will be returned. It could explicitly say 'returns' but the meaning is clear.

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 parameter semantics are not a concern. The description lists the information categories, which is sufficient for a no-parameter lookup tool.

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 identifies the resource as company facts, independence, mineral.tech®, credentials, and awards catalog. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get,' but it is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools such as get_valor_services.

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 an agent needs approved company information or credential/award details voting. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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 that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a meaningful privacy guardrail by telling users not to provide personal information, which is not in the annotations. But it does not disclose return behavior or any other operational characteristics, so the extra context is useful but not rich.

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: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add an important privacy constraint. There is 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?

For a simple optional-parameter tool, the description provides a usable starting point approximating the intended matching behavior. However, with no output schema and no parameter-level explanation, an agent cannot fully predict the return value or know exactly which inputs matter. It is minimally viable but not 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. 'Select broad categories' weakly gestures at the needs/audience inputs, but it does not explain the available enum values, how the two optional parameters relate, or what should be passed in common cases. An agent would only have a vague sense of how to populate the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Match a selected situation') and resource ('Valor services'), and it adds a usage constraint ('Select broad categories'). It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_valor_services, which is the most likely alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives useful invocation guidance: choose broad categories and avoid sharing personal information. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_valor_services or how to decide between related tools, so the usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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 state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool requires a secret token and returns an opaque receipt, which is useful. However, it does not detail what the receipt looks like or any potential errors, but this is acceptable given 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?

Two sentences, both meaningful. The key constraint (requires secret token) and the return type are front-loaded. No verbose language.

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 read-only status check with one parameter, the description covers the essential use case and constraints. It lacks detail on error cases or output format, but given the simplicity, it is 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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description must fully explain the parameter. It mentions the requestToken is a secret and used to check the request, but does not explain its format or origin. This is a gap, but the schema pattern provides some 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: to check whether a prepared request was sent, and it is distinguished from siblings by mentioning it requires a secret requestToken and returns an opaque receipt. It could be more specific about the resource, but it is clear and differentiates from siblings like prepare_contact_request.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It specifies when to use this tool (to check if a prepared request was sent) and implies it is used after preparation. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context makes it clear this is for checking status, not for creating or fetching details.

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by signaling that it provides guidance rather than performing an action and by explicitly disclaiming pricing and turnaround commitments. No contradiction with annotations is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and an explicit limitation with no filler. The essential 'how to prepare' message is front-loaded before the clarifying disclaimer.

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 informational tool with rich annotations, the description covers what the tool provides and what it does not promise. It does not describe the output format, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's guidance-like nature reduce the need for that detail.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description has no obligation to document parameters. Its mention of 'required fields' is domain guidance rather than parameter documentation, and no parameter semantics are missing.

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 identifies the tool as providing guidance on preparing a contact request, including required fields and engagement boundaries. It is less explicit about how this differs from the sibling prepare_contact_request, but the informational versus action-oriented framing is evident.

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 phrase 'How to prepare a contact request' gives clear context for when this tool is relevant, and 'No pricing or turnaround promises' is an explicit exclusion telling the agent what not to expect. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of fully explicit 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that source links are audience-specific, but it does not disclose what the response contains or how behavior changes when audience is omitted.

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 filler and front-loads the resource type. It is appropriately short, though the brevity sacrifices specificity.

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 no output schema and one partially described optional parameter, so the description needs to explain what is returned and what audience controls. It only says 'source links' vaguely, and it does not contrast with similar sibling tools. The simplicity of the tool prevents a score of 1, but the gaps are material.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented audience parameter. It only echoes the word 'audience-specific' and does not explain the enum values, optionality, or behavior when the parameter is omitted.

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 resource ('mineral management and operator back-office services') and an audience qualifier, but it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement. It does not clearly state that the tool retrieves or lists services, nor does it distinguish itself from the sibling find_relevant_service.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_relevant_service or about_valor. The audience parameter hints at possible use cases, but the description never states an explicit condition 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?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the workflow (user must open and send), the constraint of leaving out personal details, and the retry behavior (creates another draft, not another lead). It also clarifies that no lead is submitted, providing rich behavioral context that the annotations only hint at (non-readonly, non-idempotent).

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding essential constraints. Each sentence adds value—purpose, exclusions, user-action requirement, agent prohibitions, and retry semantics—without any fluff.

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 all operational aspects an agent needs: when to use, what to prepare, what to avoid, the user's required action, and retry behavior. It omits only trivial details like link format, which are not necessary for correct invocation. Annotations already cover safety, so nothing critical is 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?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions, and the tool description provides minimal guidance on the parameters. It indirectly explains 'message' (a short inquiry, with constraints) but does not explain 'need' or 'audience', leaving their meaning to inference from the enum values. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated by defining each parameter, but it does not.

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 a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('a short inquiry and return a private Valor review link'), and distinguishes itself from informational siblings by focusing on contact preparation. It immediately clarifies what the tool does and what it does not do (submit a lead), leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 specifies the trigger condition ('After the user asks to contact Valor') and provides clear directives on what the agent should not do (open or submit the link, include personal information). It lacks explicit reference to alternative tools, but the conditions for use are clear enough to guide selection without confusion.

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