Wise Mango: founder content and AI visibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful content-level disclosure: it returns a booking link and a description of the first call, which clarifies that this is an informational tool rather than one that actually books a slot — important given the action-sounding name.

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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates the three things returned, with no filler. It is slightly coy in phrasing ('and what happens next') where a direct statement of return content would be tighter.

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 content tool with no output schema, the description covers the gist of the return but never states the format or explicitly tells the agent this does not perform a booking. Given five sibling tools, the absence of routing guidance leaves a real 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. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool has a baseline of 4.

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 concrete payload — the booking link, what the first call covers, what happens next — which is more specific than the bare title. It is distinguishable from the sibling content tools (free_resources, wise_mango_services) only implicitly, since it never names an alternative.

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?

'How to start working with Wise Mango' implies the trigger context (a user asking how to engage/onboard), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling tool. Usage must be inferred from the framing sentence alone.

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=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-set lookup. The description adds little behavior beyond that: it does not say what happens when no role matches, or what the returned page identifier looks like. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the input expectation and ending on the return. The embedded examples earn their place by defining the parameter domain; there is no 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 one-parameter mapping tool with no output schema, the description covers what goes in and what comes out adequately. It could note the no-match behavior or the shape of the returned page reference, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is a bare 'who' string, so the description carries the full burden. It fills that gap by specifying the expected value is a role or situation and giving three concrete examples ('SaaS CEO', 'lawyer', 'founder raising a round'), which meaningfully constrains how to populate the parameter.

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: 'return the matching Wise Mango ghostwriting page' given a role or situation. The examples make the intended input domain concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'wise_mango_services' or 'book_a_call', so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implied by the phrasing 'Given a role or situation ... return the matching page', which suggests a lookup/mapping use case. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over 'wise_mango_services' or 'book_a_call', and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds only a marketing-style content outline; it does not clarify what the tool actually returns (narrative text, structured offer data, links) or how the content is delivered.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant filler. The colon-list structure front-loads the resource identity and enumerates the payload compactly.

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, read-only content tool with no output schema, the description covers roughly what content is available but says nothing about the form or shape of the response, which is the main remaining unknown for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 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 names a specific resource ('the founder-led AI visibility service') and enumerates the content it covers (problem, four-part system, tiers, audience), so an agent can guess it returns marketing/offer content. However, there is no verb describing the action (retrieve? display? describe?), leaving the operation type implicit, and no sibling is referenced to differentiate it from wise_mango_services or free_resources.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The sibling set contains overlapping content-style tools (wise_mango_services, free_resources), so the absence of routing rules is a real gap.

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=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content of the resource set, which is mild return-value context, but says nothing about format, linking, or whether this is a static catalog.

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 compact sentence with no filler, listing the resources up front. 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-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description does tell the agent what content comes back, but stops short of explaining the return shape (links, list, catalog) or whether the 'AI visibility check' here duplicates the founder_ai_visibility_offer sibling.

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 per the baseline the description carries no parameter burden and a 4 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 enumerates the free resources offered (planners, workbooks, visibility check, referral tracker) but never states a verb or what the tool actually does with them. It distinguishes the tool's content from siblings like book_a_call and wise_mango_services by implication, but the purpose remains a noun list that restates the title 'Free resources' rather than defining an action.

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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or how it relates to siblings such as founder_ai_visibility_offer, which overlaps with the 'free AI visibility check'. An agent must infer usage entirely from the resource list.

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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds some value by disclosing the content shape (services explanation, how engagements start, page links), but says nothing about response format, caching, or typical size for what is effectively a static content fetch.

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, front-loaded with the subject and scope, that names the audience (B2B founders and executives) before the contents. No filler or repeated 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of previewing the return contents, and it does so by listing the three things the caller gets. Adequate for a simple read-only content tool; only a note on format or currency of the links would improve it.

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; per the baseline for parameterless tools a 4 is appropriate. No meaningful gap exists here.

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 the resource plainly: a human-readable overview of what Wise Mango does, with concrete detail (LinkedIn and Reddit content, founder-led AI visibility) and an enumeration of what the response contains. It is distinguishable from find_service_for (a matcher) and founder_ai_visibility_offer (a single offer), though it does not name 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent must infer this is the 'browse the whole catalog' entry point versus find_service_for for a targeted match or free_resources for assets. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of the alternatives, but the framing as a general overview does signal the context.

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