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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses that facts carry stable ids and evidence status, that some sections appear only 'where published', and that research prompts are deliberately withheld — useful for interpreting partial results.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the content summary comes first. The comma-separated field list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what to expect in the response.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does reasonably well by enumerating response sections. However, it says nothing about lookup failure for a bad slug, or what the 'assessment' and evidence-status fields mean, leaving gaps for a retrieval tool keyed on an identifier.

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 description never mentions the single required `slug` parameter. The schema constrains the format via pattern and length, but nothing explains that this is a lowercase hyphenated identifier or where the agent obtains one, so the description fails to 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?

The description is a noun phrase enumerating the contents of a provider profile rather than a verb+resource statement of what the tool does. Combined with the title it is inferable that this returns a single provider profile, and the field list distinguishes it from `search_suppliers`, but the action itself is never stated.

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 indication of when to use this versus `search_suppliers`, no prerequisite such as needing a known slug, and no note on behavior for unpublished or unknown providers. The only guidance is a scope note that research prompts are withheld.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real value beyond them: case-insensitive matching, the presence of provider profile links in results, the 'published' scope restriction, and a staleness caveat about booth assignments. Pagination defaults and limits are left to the schema.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the primary action and scope come first and the caveat is deferred to the end where it belongs.

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 does well to mention that provider profile links may be returned and that results are filtered to published booths. The remaining gap is pagination ergonomics (defaults, max page) for a 5-parameter list tool, which is minor given the strong annotation coverage.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to compensate. It does clarify that category and name filters are case-insensitive and that page/limit govern paging, but it says nothing about event_slug format, the 1-500 page range, the 20-default/50-max limit, or the 200/80 character caps.

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 pair (filter and page) and resource (an event's published exhibitor booths), which is clearly distinct from every sibling (list_events, list_articles, search_suppliers). It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with a close alternative, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 resource and the mention of filtering, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The caveat that booth assignments should be confirmed with the exhibitor is a data-reliability note, not routing 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: results are one passage per record with canonical URLs and dates, and the relevance band is text relevance rather than answer confidence — a clarifying distinction an agent would otherwise misread. It omits pagination/limit behavior and what happens on zero hits.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it searches, what it returns, and where to go for more. Front-loaded with the search scope and 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does (passage, URLs, dates, relevance band). For a read-only 6-parameter search tool that is largely sufficient; only the limit/pagination behavior and result ordering are left 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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents query, topic, types, and review_status. The description adds only the implicit notion that query accepts natural language and that types map to articles/profiles/events; limit, supplier_category, and the interaction between topic and types are unaddressed. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does most of the work.

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 modality (semantic + keyword search) over a specific resource set (published articles, provider/media profiles, events), and names the scope (published only). The trailing pointer to get_article / get_supplier / get_event makes it distinguishable from siblings at a glance.

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 to get_article / get_supplier / get_event when the full record is needed rather than a passage, which is the key usage fork. It does not address when to prefer this over list_articles or search_suppliers, so the sibling routing is incomplete but the primary alternates are named.

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 critical context not present in the schema or annotations: 'Media records use the media category and carry no provider rating.' This disclosure prevents agents from misinterpreting or trusting rating data returned for certain record types.

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 tool uses two highly efficient sentences. Both sentences carry significant informational weight regarding the scope and data limitations, maximizing density without redundancy.

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 definition is comprehensive in outlining the types of entities searched, the available filtering mechanisms, and a key data constraint about media records. It provides all necessary context for an agent to understand the tool's capability and limitations.

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?

Given the low schema coverage (20%), the description is highly valuable. It explicitly links the search functionality to 'name text, category and review status,' providing the semantic context for three of the five defined input 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 clearly states the purpose is to browse provider and media profiles using specific criteria like name, category, and review status. While 'providers' and 'media profiles' are used, the scope of the search is well-defined compared to generic search 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 when to use it (browsing filtered results) but lacks explicit guidance on when *not* to use it. It doesn't clearly differentiate this tool's usage from dedicated single-record tools like get_supplier, requiring the agent to infer scope.

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