SVV-Schatzoekers Public Selling Agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The 'never' clause discloses the tool's non-destructive, read-only nature, which is valuable. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error behavior, but for a simple query tool, this adds meaningful transparency beyond basic purpose.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists intents and constraints, achieving high information density.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, yet the description omits parameter semantics, usage alternatives, and edge-case behavior. While an output schema exists, the description leaves significant gaps for effective selection and invocation, especially given the 0% schema description 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only lists supported intents without explaining parameters like query, max_results, in_stock_only, max_price_eur, or permission_scope. Even though the schema provides defaults, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the intent values.

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 'Ask' with resource SVV, and clearly states the scope as a 'bounded public question' with supported intents. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search' or 'fetch' by defining its exact querying role.

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 context by listing supported intents and explicitly stating what the tool never does (orders, negotiates, contacts people, takes payment, changes store data). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when this tool should not be used, so it misses explicit 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is a read-only fetch from a 'public facade,' implying no authentication or side effects, and states that it returns 'the actual text.' It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a simple fetch operation, the key behavioral aspects (safe, public, read-only, returns content) are covered, which is solid though not exhaustive.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place — no fluff, no redundant details, and the structure logically leads from purpose to usage.

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 simple nature of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is quite complete: it states what it does, when to use it, and what it returns ('actual text'). The main gap is the implicit derivation of the 'id' parameter, but the reference to search() and the availability of output schema mitigate this. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation in most cases.

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 one required 'id' string with zero description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain what 'id' means or how to obtain it, but the guidance 'Use after search()' implies that the id comes from search results, providing indirect semantic context. This partially compensates for the lack of schema description but does not fully clarify the parameter's role or format.

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 with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one canonical SVV context document') from the public facade. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool 'search' by framing itself as the next step to obtain the actual text, making its purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 the tool: 'Use after search() when you need the actual text.' This gives direct placement in a workflow and implies that 'search' is the alternative for finding/listing documents rather than fetching content, effectively distinguishing the tool's role.

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. It implies a read operation ('Return') and says 'fast overview,' but it does not explicitly mention side effects, safety, caching, or any potential caveats. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a usage note. Every sentence contributes value; there is no fluff 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and when to use it. The only missing context is deeper behavioral detail, but the output schema fills the return-structure gap, making this 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; no compensation is needed.

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 ('Return') and a precise resource ('current canonical SVV snapshot'), making the tool's function clear. It also differentiates from siblings by positioning this as a fast overview instead of calling many separate tools, which is helpful for selection.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this for a fast overview instead of calling many separate tools.' This tells the agent when to prefer it, though it does not name specific sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 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 conveys that the output is 'compact' and 'minimal', implying a low-overhead read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state safety guarantees, side effects, or what 'snapshot' entails beyond the name, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool's core behavior, the second provides actionable usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and free of 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?

Given the zero-parameter complexity, presence of an output schema to describe return values, and the clear usage trigger, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and when to invoke it, leaving no obvious 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?

The tool has zero parameters, which gives a baseline of 4 as per guidelines. The description correctly does not invent parameter details, and with an empty schema there is nothing further to explain.

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 'compact operational status summary plus minimal startup/readback snapshot', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by positioning it as a 'one-call fallback' and using 'minimal', differentiating it from more comprehensive tools like startup_operator_snapshot.

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'Use this as the one-call fallback when ChatGPT tool invocation is flaky.' It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or cite alternative tools, so it misses the full 5 criterion.

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 of disclosing behavior. The use of 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it describe error scenarios or any security implications. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the verb 'Return'. Every word is essential, with no filler or repetition. It is extremely concise and well-structured.

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 (0 params, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks context about what 'facade tool manifest' means, when to invoke this tool, and how it relates to sibling tools like `ops_status_summary` and `latest_memory_snapshot`. The output schema can explain return values, but usage context is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not hinder understanding.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('facade tool manifest and deployment metadata'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `ops_status_summary` and `startup_operator_snapshot` by naming a unique output type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it returns, without any context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The tool's name hints at a self-check purpose, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 'small' and 'current', but does not disclose what the search returns, whether it is read-only, rate limits, or any failure behavior. Minimal transparency.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource, 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?

With an output schema present and a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and usage context. It does not need to detail return values, and the limitation is acceptable given the output schema.

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 does not elaborate on the 'query' parameter. The name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional semantic details, which is needed at this coverage level.

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') and resource ('the small SVV public knowledge facade'), and it distinguishes from the sibling 'fetch' tool by noting this is the step before fetching.

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 explicit when-to-use context: 'when you need the right current SVV context document before fetching it.' It implies fetch as an alternative, but does not explicitly name it or exclude other 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 must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the tool 'returns' a snapshot and lists contents; it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, performance characteristics, or whether it is read-only. Since this is a retrieval tool, one could assume it is non-mutating, but the description does not confirm this, leaving a transparency 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's essence. Every word contributes meaning: 'one-call' sets expectations, 'startup snapshot' identifies the resource, and the specific elements ('workability cards, routes, current P0 focus') clarify the scope. No filler or 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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain input or return value details. It sufficiently conveys what the snapshot contains. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool in the broader workflow, which would improve completeness. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 input schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter details because there are none.

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 'startup snapshot' with specific contents: 'workability cards, routes and current P0 focus.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, making it distinct from generic fetch tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'ops_status_summary' or 'latest_memory_snapshot', so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 word 'one-call' implies this is the primary or aggregated snapshot tool, suggesting it should be used when a comprehensive startup overview is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only weakly implied by the description.

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