Beacon by EVAA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the content scope of the response (identity, operator, location, contact), which is useful, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or format.

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 with no filler; the content enumeration is packed efficiently into the one line and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the four content areas covered. For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool this is close to complete; only the response format/structure remains unspecified.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims contradict the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb-less but clear resource: an overview of 'Beacon by EVAA' and enumerates its scope (what it is, who operates it, where it is based, how to reach it). That is enough to distinguish it from get_resource/list_offers/list_resources, which are data-listing tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the content list makes clear this is an orientation/informational lookup to run before fetching specific resources. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing (e.g., 'use this before list_offers to learn about the venue') is provided.

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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns 'the full text' and that it targets 'one published' article, which is useful but minimal. No info on errors, rate limits, or response format.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the parameter source. No waste.

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 schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate but doesn't fully specify behavior (e.g., what happens if slug is invalid, whether it includes metadata). It could better distinguish from get_overview and list_resources.

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% and the single parameter is already described in the schema as 'Article slug from list_resources.' The description repeats this provenance but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one published Beacon article) and clarifies it returns full text. It's clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_overview or list_resources beyond the singular 'one' and 'full text'.

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?

Implies usage by stating the slug comes from list_resources, which hints at the workflow, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus list_resources or get_overview. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description contributes the useful caveat that no pricing data is returned (engagements are quoted separately), which pre-empts a common misinvocation, but says nothing about ordering, size, or refresh behavior.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and closed with the one scope caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what a caller receives, and it does so by enumerating the three offers and their framing (audience, inclusions). A sentence on how the offers are returned or how they relate to get_resource/get_overview would close the remaining gap.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing arguments and instead spends its words on the response contents.

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 and enumerates its exact contents ('the three things Beacon sells: AI answer audit, visibility monitoring, ChatGPT app and plugin builds'), so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It lacks an explicit verb ('list' lives only in the name) and never names the sibling tools it differs from, but the content specificity is strong enough to separate it from get_overview and list_resources in practice.

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 'use this when' statement and no reference to the alternatives (get_overview, get_resource, list_resources). The only guidance is a negative boundary — 'No prices: every engagement is quoted' — which tells the agent not to call this for pricing but leaves the positive selection condition 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the returned payload (title, summary, publication date, URL), which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about ordering, count, or pagination.

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

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

A single efficient sentence with no padding, and the resource identity is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the sentence is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an action, weakening the front-load of the verb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description does the important remaining work of enumerating the returned fields. That largely covers the missing output schema; the gaps are minor scope/ordering details.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies — there are no parameter semantics the description needs to explain, and the field list it does give describes return shape rather than inputs.

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 resource ('Beacon's published articles on AI search') but never states the action — there is no verb like 'list' or 'returns all', so an agent must infer it from the name. It also does not distinguish this tool from the sibling get_resource, which presumably fetches a single article.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is given. There is no indication of when to choose this over get_resource, list_offers, or get_overview, and no statement of prerequisites or scope limits.

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