THE COOP

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, read-only, non-open-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that it documents what the server logs and how content is sourced/reviewed — provenance and logging behavior that an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 that front-loads the core subject ('What THE COOP is') and lists the remaining topics compactly. No filler, no repetition of the title, every clause earns its place.

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 no-param informational tool with no output schema, the description essentially serves as the return-value summary by enumerating the four topics covered, which is the right approach. It is nearly complete, though it could note that no inputs are required so an agent knows it can be called unconditionally.

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 is empty with full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool; no param-specific wording is needed or present.

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 ('THE COOP') and enumerates the specific informational content it returns: what the coop is, sourcing/review process, citation guidance, and server logging. This clearly separates it from the data-retrieval siblings (get_article, list_events, search) which return records rather than meta-documentation. It lacks an explicit verb framing, but for a zero-parameter 'about' tool that is a minor gap.

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 can infer this is the tool to consult for provenance, citation, and logging questions, but the description never states when to call it (e.g., before citing content or to understand data sourcing) or how it relates to the retrieval siblings. No explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds content scope (what the returned article includes, and that it is restricted to published pieces), but says nothing about behavior on missing or unpublished slugs.

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 names the resource first and then lists the payload. Efficient, with no filler, though the trailing list is dense.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back. The remaining gap is error/absence behavior for invalid or unpublished slugs.

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 only parameter, 'slug', is never mentioned in the description. The schema's pattern and maxLength constrain format, but nothing explains what a THE COOP slug is or where to obtain it, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (a published THE COOP article) and its payload (full text, sources, author, dates, sponsorship disclosure). 'Full text' implicitly distinguishes it from list_articles/search, though no sibling is named 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 implied: fetch one specific article rather than a listing. The word 'published' hints that unpublished slugs may not work, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to list_articles/search.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the burden is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default omission of the large exhibitor list and how to override it. Auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the default-behavior constraint is front-loaded ahead of the alternatives, which is exactly the right ordering for a scanning agent.

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 responsibly sketches the return contents and the default omission behavior, and it routes to alternatives for exhibitors. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though slug semantics remain implicit.

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. It explains include_exhibitors well (default false = list omitted, true = full list), but says nothing about slug beyond its implicit role, leaving half the parameters to be inferred from the name and regex pattern.

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 (get) and resource (event) and even names what the response contains ('organiser sources and exhibitor count'), which lets an agent anticipate the payload. It does not differentiate itself from list_events, but the singular/plural split makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

Explicitly states the default behavior (large exhibitor list omitted) and names two concrete routes for getting exhibitors: list_exhibitors for filtering and include_exhibitors for the full list. This is genuine when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't state when the tool itself should be preferred over siblings.

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 openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description's contribution is disclosing the shape of the returned data (per-fact evidence status, source ids, checked dates, missing information), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It still omits likely-failure behavior (unknown or malformed slug) and any notion that no filtering/pagination applies.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is a fragment with no verb, so it is under-specified rather than truly concise. Restructuring around a main verb would cost little space and add 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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating the profile's components, which is the most valuable thing it could add. It is nevertheless incomplete as a tool definition because the retrieval action and the slug parameter go unstated.

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 required parameter, slug, is never mentioned in the description. The description does not explain that the slug identifies a supplier, nor that it can be obtained from search_suppliers, so it adds no meaning over the bare 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 text is a noun phrase describing the resource's contents ('A supplier profile: facts with per-fact evidence status...') rather than stating the action. It does differentiate the resource from list/search siblings by enumerating what a profile contains, but it never says what the tool does to a slug, so an agent must infer 'retrieve a supplier by slug'.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative, search_suppliers, despite it being a sibling. The agent gets no help deciding between fetching a profile by slug and searching.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait — that only published articles are returned and they are ordered by recency ('latest published') — but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume.

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 economical sentence with the resource and its primary constraint front-loaded. There is no filler, and nothing is buried.

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 read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, the key missing pieces are pagination guidance (page max 500, limit max 20 with defaults of 1/10) and any hint about the returned article shape, given there is no output schema. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains the topic and format filters (matching the two enum params) but is silent on page and limit, leaving pagination semantics entirely to the schema's defaults and bounds.

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 (list) and resource (articles) with scope qualifiers ('latest published') and supported filters. It is distinguishable from get_article, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly-named sibling 'search' or explain how results differ.

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?

'optionally filtered by topic or format' implies the browsing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_article (single item) or search (query-driven). The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds return-content context (dates, venue, exhibitor counts), which is useful since no output schema exists, but says nothing about pagination behavior or default filtering.

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, and the resource identifier is front-loaded. It is efficient rather than under-specified, though it omits the verb the agent needs.

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 five undocumented parameters, the description carries more burden than it does. It should at least mention the period/region filtering and pagination defaults so an agent can call it correctly without guessing.

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% across five parameters, and the description compensates for none of it — page, limit, query, period and region are never mentioned. The period and region enums (probably the most important filters) are left undocumented in both schema and 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 description identifies the specific resource — iGaming industry events tracked by THE COOP — and the data fields returned (dates, venue, exhibitor counts), which distinguishes it from get_event and list_exhibitors. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit listing verb, so the action must be inferred from the tool name.

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 guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to siblings such as get_event (single event detail) or list_exhibitors. An agent gets no help choosing between the listing tools in this namespace.

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, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not: filters are case-insensitive, supplier profile links are included only 'when available', and booth assignments are advisory and should be verified. That is genuine disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 with no filler, and the verb+resource is front-loaded so the agent learns the operation immediately. The trailing statements about case-insensitivity and booth confirmation are compact, though they could be tightened.

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 5 parameters, the description carries more burden than it does: it hints at supplier profile links and paging but never outlines the returned booth fields or pagination limits. Combined with 40% schema coverage on parameters, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for a list/search tool.

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 only 40%: query and category are documented in the schema, but page, limit, and event_slug carry no descriptions. The description partially compensates by establishing case-insensitive semantics for category and name filtering, but it says nothing about page/limit behavior, which must be inferred from defaults and min/max 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?

States a specific verb set (filter and page) plus a precise resource (an event's published exhibitor booths), which clearly separates it from siblings like search_suppliers, get_supplier, and list_events. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can identify the resource unambiguously.

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 routing to alternatives such as search_suppliers or get_supplier even though the description mentions supplier profile links. The only advisory sentence ('booth assignments should be confirmed with the exhibitor') is a data-accuracy caveat, not usage 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 declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful return-shape context — one passage per record, canonical URLs, dates, a text-relevance band that is NOT an answer-confidence score — which pre-empts a common misinterpretation. It stops short of describing pagination or ranking order.

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, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the return semantics and the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 correctly takes on the job of explaining what comes back (passages, URLs, dates, relevance band) and does so adequately for a 6-parameter search tool. The remaining gap is that it says nothing about result ordering or how multiple filters combine.

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 67% and three parameters carry enums, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no explanation of limit defaults, topic vs. types interaction, or how review_status/supplier_category scope results). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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+resource ('Semantic + keyword search across published THE COOP articles, supplier and media profiles and industry events'), including both the search modality and the content scope. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the record-fetching siblings (get_article, get_supplier, get_event) without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use get_article / get_supplier / get_event for the full record,' which names the alternatives and the condition that selects them. The 'published' qualifier further implies search is scoped to live content rather than all records.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful data caveat that the schema cannot express: media records use the 'media' category and carry no supplier rating. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or the shape of what comes back.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core capability is front-loaded and the media-record caveat follows immediately, so every sentence earns its place.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema and no required params, the description covers what is searched and one data caveat but omits what a result looks like, how paging interacts with the search, and any indication of result volume or ordering. Adequate to call the tool, thin for interpreting its output.

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 only 20% – just the 'query' param is documented ('Name or keyword'). The description compensates partially by mapping its three filter axes to name text, category and review status, and the two enum params are self-describing. But page/limit semantics and their bounds remain undocumented in prose, so the low coverage is only partly offset.

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 verb (browse/search) and resource (THE COOP supplier and media profiles) plus the three filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It is implicitly distinct from the singular get_supplier and the generic search sibling, but it never names those alternatives, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 listed filter axes (name text, category, review status), which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling 'search' or 'get_supplier', and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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