SmartAPIs Products Watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the activation condition, which is a behavioral rule, but does not mention side effects such as whether the activation is idempotent, reversible, or what happens if a free plan already exists. This is basic but adequate for a simple zero-parameter activation tool.

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, concise sentence that immediately delivers the core purpose and condition. No redundant phrases or filler words; every word 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the activation trigger and action. Minor gaps like idempotency or error cases are not covered, but given the low complexity, the description is nearly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially complete. Per the rule, a baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to explain parameter details and does not add any.

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 the specific verb 'Activate' with a clear resource ('free developer plan') and an explicit scope condition ('when no paid or trialing plan is active'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_checkout_session or list_plans.

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 states when to use this tool: when no paid or trialing plan is active. This provides a clear trigger and implicitly indicates the tool should not be used when such plans exist, though it does not name alternative tools.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the need for an admin key but does not disclose side effects, whether the issuance is reversible, rate limits, or what the response includes. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.

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 that is direct and efficient. It front-loads the primary action and includes the essential prerequisite without any unnecessary words.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, so the complexity is low. The description covers the basic purpose and prerequisite, but it omits usage guidance relative to sibling tools and does not mention what the issuance returns, leaving some 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 100%, with both 'label' and 'scopes' described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it does not go beyond the baseline expected for full schema coverage.

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 action: 'Issue a client-scoped API key' with a specific purpose ('for downstream agent or application access'). It also specifies a prerequisite ('using an admin key'), which makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like smartagent_access_activate_developer_free.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when a client-scoped API key is needed for downstream access and an admin key is available. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the admin key requirement, which is a useful authentication detail, but it does not mention behavioral outcomes such as whether the session is returned as a URL or object, what side effects occur, or error behavior. This is a thin profile for a create operation.

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, focused sentence of thirteen words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. 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 create tool with no output schema, the description fails to explain the return value (e.g., a checkout session URL or ID) or the overall flow. It also lacks usage guidance and does not clarify what happens after the session is created. While the schema covers parameters, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context. Notably, the schema's parameter descriptions mark some fields as 'Required' while the schema itself lists no required parameters, which could cause confusion, but the description does not help resolve this.

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 action (Create), the specific resource (Stripe checkout session), and the context (for a plan purchase). This differentiates it from siblings like create_portal_session, which handles billing portal sessions. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 'for a plan purchase' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as smartagent_billing_create_portal_session, nor are there any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is implied, not explicitly directed.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that an admin key is used and a session is created, but does not describe the return value, side effects, or session behavior (e.g., expiration, redirect). This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 conveys the core purpose with no filler. It is concise, readable, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 tool without an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but omits the return value and any details about session lifetime or usage flow. The lack of behavioral information makes it only partially 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?

The input schema already documents the single return_url parameter with 100% coverage, including a default value. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Stripe Customer Portal session for subscription management using an admin key.' It clearly states the tool's purpose and differentiates from the sibling billing_create_checkout_session by focusing on portal sessions and subscription management.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The phrase 'for subscription management' implies a use case but does not contrast with create_checkout_session or state when not to use this tool. The admin key hint is a permission condition but not sufficient 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly disclose whether authentication is required, if the response is paginated, or if any side effects exist. It does state the type of data returned, which is useful.

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 that is direct and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the return content by listing key fields (plans, currencies, included modules, quotas). It does not explain response format or pagination, but for a straightforward catalog listing, this is sufficient.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant param details.

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 identifies the resource as 'published SmartAgentAPIs plans' with additional detail on returned fields (currencies, included modules, quotas). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like searches and billing operations.

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 usage when you need to retrieve plan information, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No context about prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools is offered.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'privacy-reviewed' and the endpoint, but does not state whether this is a safe read operation, whether authentication is required, what limits or pagination apply, or what happens on errors or empty 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the endpoint and the key filtering dimensions without waste. Every word contributes useful information, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 search tool with three fully documented optional parameters, the description provides the endpoint, resource, and filter dimensions, which is enough to invoke the tool correctly. The absence of response-shape details is a minor gap given there is no output schema, but the core context is adequately covered.

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 each parameter individually described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantics beyond restating the parameter names ('region, query, and limit'), which does not exceed what the input schema already provides.

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 action ('Search'), the specific resource ('/v1/civic/service-points', 'civic service points'), and the filtering dimensions ('region, query, and limit'). This is much more specific than sibling tool names and immediately distinguishes the tool's purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools like places_search, products_search, or regulatory_permits_search. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions or contexts where it should be preferred.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the data is 'public' and 'structured', implying a read-only, open-access operation. However, it does not describe behavior for unsupported location IDs, error responses, or what exactly the 'structured agent context' contains, leaving notable gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or restating of the title. Every phrase contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise.

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 read tool without an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It tells what the tool does but fails to describe the returned context structure, the list of supported locations, or what makes a location 'supported', all of which would help an agent understand the result without additional calls.

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 100% because the 'location_id' parameter already includes examples and a description. The tool description only lightly reinforces this with 'supported launch city or region alias' and adds no further semantic detail beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource ('public structured agent context') with a clear scope ('for a supported launch city or region alias'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling 'smartagent_place_agent_context_get', which likely targets a different granularity of context.

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 the tool is for retrieving city/region-level agent context, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as 'smartagent_place_agent_context_get' or the other search tools. There are no 'when not to use' or 'if you need X use Y' statements, so guidance is merely implied.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Return', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose the nature of the payload (e.g., sensitive data, possible size, authentication requirements, or whether it is a composite of other API calls). This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists all included data types. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key aspects: what it returns and which data domains are included. The term 'payload' implies a structured response, though it could be more explicit about the output format. Overall, it is complete for a simple no-parameter aggregate 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema is trivially complete with no properties.

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 ('Return') and resource ('browser-dashboard payload') and enumerates the contained data domains (organization, subscription, usage, entitlements, keys, audit events). This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like smartagent_usage_summary.

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 this tool is for obtaining a comprehensive dashboard overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over more specific tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is safe, whether any authorization is required, or what side effects (if any) exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the endpoint and key response features. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 tool with no input and no output schema, the description does a good job of conveying the core return value by listing its main components. However, it omits details such as the response format (e.g., JSON schema) or any usage caveats, which would make it even more complete. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, and the input schema is empty. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value instead.

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 returns a specific endpoint (/v1/agent/capabilities) and enumerates what it includes (route-family metadata, MCP parity hints, runnable example references). This distinguishes it from the wide range of sibling tools that handle access, billing, search, and other specific operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this discovery endpoint versus other tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this would be the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. The term 'legally reviewed' adds a qualifier but doesn't disclose behavior. Minimal transparency beyond the action itself.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Search') and specifies the resource and key parameters. Every word contributes information, with 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 simple search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description gives the essential context about what it searches. However, it doesn't describe the shape of the return values ('references' is vague) or any pagination behavior. It's minimally complete but leaves uncertainty about what the agent will receive.

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 already documents all three parameters (q, limit, region_id) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description simply restates 'by region, query, and limit' without adding deeper semantics beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific resource ('environment alerts') and action ('Search'), and even specifies the endpoint '/v1/environment/alerts'. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like places_search or products_search by naming the unique domain.

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 provides clear context that this tool is used for searching legally reviewed environment alert references, with parameters region, query, and limit. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the domain is clear enough for an agent to decide. Lacks exclusions, hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation ('fetch') and states the resource type, but does not describe response format, error behavior, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 endpoint and purpose. No wasted words.

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 1-parameter read tool without annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but does not explain what 'agent-oriented summary fields' contain or any edge cases. It leaves some ambiguity about the return value.

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 100% with 'Required place identifier.' The description adds only minimal context by referencing {place_id} in the endpoint and noting it is for one place record. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'fetch' and the resource 'SmartAPIs agent-oriented summary fields for one place record', and names the specific endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like smartagent_context_get and place search tools.

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 usage context: when you need agent-oriented summary fields for a specific place. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool finds nearby legally reviewed places; it does not explain what 'legally reviewed' means, how results are ordered, whether pagination or limits apply, or what the response contains. This is minimal behavioral transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. Every word adds meaning and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description is very terse. It does not clarify return value shape, default radius, or interaction among parameters like q, limit, and radius_km. While the schema covers parameter syntax, the description lacks broader usage context and behavioral details, making it adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., latitude/longitude 'for proximity ranking'). The description adds only the phrase 'caller-supplied coordinate,' which aligns with the schema but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('find'), identifies the resource ('nearby legally reviewed places'), and states the input ('caller-supplied coordinate'). The phrase 'nearby' plus coordinate clearly differentiates this from the sibling smartagent_places_search, which likely has a broader search scope.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need places near a coordinate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative such as smartagent_places_search, so it lacks explicit exclusion 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the nuance 'legally reviewed' but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, return format, or the fact that all parameters are optional (which could imply unfiltered search). The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond naming the endpoint.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Search,' and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to identifying the purpose and key filters. This is appropriately concise.

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 is simple (3 optional params, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description covers the core purpose and filters. However, it lacks guidance on expected return values and does not distinguish usage from sibling search tools. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, some additional behavioral context would improve completeness, but the current description is minimally viable.

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% (all three parameters described). The description only restates the parameter names ('region, query, and limit') without adding additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents each optional parameter, the description adds no extra semantic value, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Search') and resource ('/v1/places/search') with clear scope: 'legally reviewed place records by region, query, and limit.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like places_nearby, which likely uses geographic proximity rather than structured filters.

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 usage when searching for place records by region, query, or limit, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as smartagent_places_nearby or civic_service_points_search. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the context 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the search targets 'legally reviewed' product references and names the endpoint, which adds some context, but it does not discuss return shape, pagination, permissions, or potential side effects. For a read-only search, this is adequate but not overly 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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the endpoint, the data domain, and the available filter criteria. Every word adds value, with 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 search tool with five optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description provides the essential purpose and context. While no output schema exists and returns are not explicitly described, the term 'product references' implies the expected result type, and the schema's limit parameter indicates result constraints. This is sufficient for a search 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's list of filter dimensions (region, query, brand, GTIN, limit) aligns with the schema properties and provides context that these parameters are filters for the product search, but it does not add new semantics beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 ('Search') and clearly identifies the target resource ('/v1/products/search') and the data domain ('legally reviewed product references'). It also enumerates the relevant filter dimensions (region, query, brand, GTIN, limit), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling search tools.

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 the tool is used for searching product references but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling search tools (e.g., places_search, civic_service_points_search). No when-not scenarios or alternatives are mentioned.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'retrieve' clearly implies a read-only operation, which is good. However, it does not disclose any potential edge behaviors, such as error handling or the meaning of 'business anchor', nor does it explicitly confirm there are no side effects.

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 endpoint and action, no filler words. Every part 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 simple get-by-ID tool, it is mostly adequate, but it does not explain what a 'regulated facility or business anchor' entails or what the response structure looks like, especially since no output schema exists. It also leaves room for confusion with the related sibling tool for site briefs.

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 already provides a description for facility_id ('Required facility identifier'), and the tool description adds no further meaning beyond showing the URL placeholder. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, this is at the baseline.

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 action ('retrieve') and the specific resource ('one regulated facility or business anchor') with the exact endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools, which are for inspections, licenses, and permits.

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 implicitly indicates this is for retrieving a single facility by ID, contrasting with the search tools in the siblings. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the site brief, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the responsibility. It discloses that the tool searches public summaries and names the endpoint, implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't describe pagination, authentication needs, or other behavioral details. It adds some value beyond the 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 efficiently conveys the endpoint, purpose, and key filters. No unnecessary words 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?

The tool has four optional parameters and no output schema. The description indicates the result will be summaries, but does not explain response structure, pagination, or behavior when no parameters are provided. Adequate but with gaps for a 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?

The schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description merely lists the same filters (region, query, status, limit) without adding new meaning or constraints. Baseline 3 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?

Clearly states it searches regulatory inspection summaries with a specific verb and resource. The filters (region, query, status, limit) are enumerated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like permits or licenses search.

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 gives clear context: this is for legally reviewed public inspection summaries. It implies when to use it (when inspection data is needed), though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The resource scope is well-defined.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the data is 'public' and 'legally reviewed,' adding some context, but it does not disclose behaviors like authentication requirements, pagination, default limits, or whether results are ordered. Since the operation is a read-only search, the absence of side effects is implied.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the action and resource, and each phrase adds informational value (e.g., 'legally reviewed' and 'public' offer useful context).

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameters adequately. However, it doesn't describe the response format or pagination behavior, and with no annotations, these details are left unspecified. For a simple search tool, this is a minor gap but not fatal.

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 100%, meeting the high-coverage baseline. However, both the schema descriptions ('Optional query string') and the tool description ('by region, query, status, and limit') are generic and add no deeper meaning beyond the parameter names and types.

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 action ('Search'), the specific endpoint ('/v1/regulatory/licenses/search'), and the target resource ('legally reviewed public licensing records'). It also lists the filter dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like permits and inspections search.

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 its use case (searching licensing records) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as regulatory_permits_search or regulatory_inspections_search. It doesn't mention exclusions or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds useful context (legally reviewed, public summaries) but does not disclose default behavior, pagination details, error conditions, or safety traits. This is partial transparency, not comprehensive.

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 redundancy. It front-loads the action and includes the key filters in a natural order. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must provide broader context. It identifies the resource and main filters but omits details about result format, pagination behavior, or prerequisites. However, the tool is a straightforward search with a limit parameter, making the description minimally 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description redundantly lists the filter types (region, query, status, limit) but adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 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 clearly identifies the action (Search), the resource (/v1/regulatory/permits/search), and the subject (legally reviewed public permit summaries). It distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools like licenses_search and inspections_search by explicitly focusing on permits.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any 'use this when' or 'instead of' language, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the resource name. No exclusions or context are given.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Search') but does not disclose any response format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether results are sorted. The phrase 'legally reviewed' hints at data quality but does not clarify behavioral semantics.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the key filters. It is concise with no wasted words, effectively conveying the essential purpose.

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 a simple search operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but omits any expected return structure or behavioral details. For a relatively simple read-only search, this is minimally sufficient, though it could better contextualize the 'legally reviewed' aspect.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter concisely. The description adds little beyond mapping the three parameters to 'region, query, and limit,' which mirrors the schema. No additional syntax or formatting details are provided, so this is baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('/v1/transit/routes'), and key filtering dimensions ('by region, query, and limit'). It effectively signals the operation's scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling search tools like civic_service_points_search, though the resource name provides some 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?

The description implies usage by naming the endpoint and filter criteria, and the input schema gives optional parameters for querying. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over other search tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is adequate but could be improved with a note about the 'legally reviewed' aspect.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds the requirement of an admin key and the current-period scope, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens without a valid admin key, potential rate limits, or the exact response structure. This is thin for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without fluff. Every word contributes: 'current-period' defines scope, 'usage and quota' defines resource, 'admin key' defines a prerequisite. No redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly identifies the purpose and key requirement. However, it could add a bit more about what constitutes a 'summary' (e.g., included metrics or format) to fully meet completeness for an agent. Still, for a zero-param tool, it is sufficient.

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 and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it mentions 'using an admin key,' which clarifies an external authentication requirement. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the current-period usage and quota summary using an admin key.' It specifies the verb (Return), resource (usage and quota summary), scope (current-period), and requirement (admin key). This distinguishes it from siblings like dashboard_summary, which likely covers a broader overview.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action and the admin key prerequisite, but does not mention when this is appropriate (e.g., 'when you need to check quotas') or exclude cases (e.g., 'use dashboard_summary for broader metrics'). No alternatives 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior—returning a combined cross-family response—but does not mention authentication, error handling, pagination, or the effect of the limit parameter. This is a moderate gap for a retrieval tool.

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 states the endpoint and the purpose. No filler or repetition. Every word 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?

Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly sufficient. It explains the workflow's aggregated nature, which is important for distinguishing it from simpler single-domain siblings. However, it does not describe response format or potential error conditions, leaving a small 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 schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond schema: it only restates facility_id in the URL path. It does not explain the limit parameter's semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a call to the regulatory-site-brief workflow endpoint and defines its output as a cross-family response combining regulatory, transit, and environment context. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling single-domain tools like regulatory_facility_get or transit_routes_search.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool—when a combined regulatory, transit, and environmental perspective is needed—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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