ScoutRail

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 covered. The description adds that the tool returns 'status', which gives some insight into the output, but does not elaborate on what statuses exist or any other behavioral aspects. Given the annotations, this is adequate 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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the status detail. Every word contributes value, and 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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is listed (markets ScoutRail can scout) and what is included (their status). An agent can invoke it without further clarification, and the readOnlyHint confirms it is a safe read 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It correctly avoids inventing parameters that do not exist.

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 names the resource 'markets', adding the scoping context 'ScoutRail can scout' and the output detail 'and their status'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'scout_opportunities', which implies the latter is for actively searching opportunities rather than listing available markets.

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 the sibling, nor does it provide any exclusions. The phrase 'can scout' implies a reference list, and the sibling name suggests an alternative, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit. An agent would likely infer the right choice from naming, but no direct comparison is made.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the output is ranked and grouped with a recommended NEXT MOVE, freshness comes from re-invocation, and there is a signed-webhook subscription path for backend agents. That is solid extra context, though it omits things like rate limits or result caps.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then the webhook detail, then examples. Each sentence carries information, though the webhook/backend paragraph is a mild digression for a conversational agent that the description itself says should just re-call the 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return shape (ranked, grouped, with a NEXT MOVE), and covers scoping, refresh behavior, and an integration path. For an open-world search tool with an existing output schema, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with only two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by supplying worked examples ({"business":"IT security consultancy","markets":["za","uk"]}) that demonstrate the business/markets relationship and the market-code format, which the schema does not illustrate.

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 set: 'Find live public tenders, grants, RFPs and buyers for any business, by country/market.' An agent immediately understands the retrieval task. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_markets, so it falls just 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 tells the agent how to invoke it ('Pass a short description of what the business sells or does; optionally scope to market codes') and what to do for updates (re-call the tool, or POST to the subscribe endpoint for backend agents). There is no explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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