remno

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden and successfully discloses the unimplemented status and output piping behavior between steps. However, it lacks details on error handling, side effects of creation, or what successful invocation returns given the mutation implied by "Create."

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

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

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, behavioral differentiation, and critical implementation status without redundancy or filler. The warning about unimplemented status is appropriately placed as the final sentence to prevent accidental invocation.

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 involving complex multi-step orchestration, the description covers basic functionality and implementation status but omits return value description, error scenarios, and detailed step composition guidance. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, additional behavioral context would be necessary for a complete definition.

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?

With 100% schema coverage describing the "JSON array of chain steps," the description appropriately does not repeat technical specifications. While it conceptually aligns with the "steps" parameter through "multi-step" mention, it adds no specific semantic guidance regarding the service_id or input mapping syntax beyond the schema definition.

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?

"Create a multi-step transaction chain" provides a specific verb and resource, while "multi-step" explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling ae_create_transaction. The second sentence further clarifies the chaining capability through "sequential service invocations with output piping," cementing the 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 explicitly states "Phase 3 — not yet implemented," providing critical guidance on when not to use the tool. However, it only implies when to use this versus ae_create_transaction through the "multi-step" qualifier without explicitly naming the alternative or stating prerequisites for the steps parameter format.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'Creates a fund hold' which discloses the financial mechanism/escrow behavior. However, lacks details on reversibility, wallet balance requirements, failure modes, or output format that would be essential for a financial transaction 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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with core action ('Initiate a purchase'), followed by mechanism ('Creates a fund hold'), then prerequisite. Every sentence 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 100% schema coverage, description appropriately focuses on workflow orchestration rather than parameter details. Missing title is not description's fault. Could improve by mentioning return value or transaction state lifecycle, but prerequisite guidance and fund-hold disclosure provide sufficient context for selection.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds workflow context linking service_id and pricing verification to ae_get_service, but doesn't add semantic details beyond what schema already provides for the JSON input format or price constraints.

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 specific action 'Initiate a purchase' and resource 'service', plus mechanism 'Creates a fund hold'. Distinguishes from siblings like ae_get_service (read) and ae_negotiate by specifying the purchase/fund-hold action.

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 prerequisite chain: 'Call ae_get_service first to obtain service_id and verify pricing'. Clearly defines when to use (after getting service details) and implicitly identifies ae_get_service as the required predecessor.

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 successfully discloses the authorization constraint (provider-only) and validation requirement (schema conformance). However, it lacks critical behavioral details for a delivery/finalization tool: it doesn't specify if this action completes the transaction, updates state, or what happens on validation failure.

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

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

Three sentences with zero filler. The first states purpose, the second states authorization, the third states validation requirements. Minor deduction because the third sentence largely repeats the schema parameter description rather than adding new context, but the emphasis on conformance is valuable for a delivery tool.

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 position in a transaction lifecycle (siblings include ae_create_transaction, ae_verify_output), the description adequately identifies the actor and action but misses opportunity to clarify the transaction state transition. Without an output schema, the description is sufficient for invocation but lacks lifecycle context (e.g., whether this marks the transaction as 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 both transaction_id and output parameters fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the schema's validation constraint ('must conform to the service's output_schema') but adds no additional semantic context about the output format or transaction identification beyond what the schema already 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?

The description clearly states the core action (deliver output) and resource (service execution). The phrase 'Only callable by the provider agent' effectively distinguishes this from consumer-facing siblings like ae_get_transaction or ae_verify_output by specifying the required caller 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 explicit constraints: caller must be the provider agent, and output must conform to the service's output_schema. While it doesn't explicitly map the workflow sequence (e.g., 'Use after executing the service'), the caller restriction serves as clear authorization guidance for tool selection.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. Adds useful behavioral context about return format ('ranked results with pricing') and search type ('semantic'). However, lacks disclosure about safety profile (read-only vs mutation), authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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

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

Three sentences total, each earning its place: (1) core purpose, (2) return values, (3) usage guidelines vs alternative. Front-loaded with essential information. 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?

Despite lacking annotations and output schema, description adequately covers tool complexity. Schema has complete parameter coverage (100%). Description compensates for missing output schema by mentioning 'ranked results with pricing'. Minor gap: could clarify pagination behavior or result structure, but sufficient for invocation.

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 structured data already documents all 6 parameters. Description implies the natural language nature of the 'need' parameter through 'semantic search' reference, but does not add significant syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific verb ('Search') + resource ('Remno marketplace for services') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling ae_list_services by contrasting 'semantic search' vs 'browsing by category'. Also clarifies output ('ranked results with pricing').

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('Use for semantic search') and when-not-to-use/alternative ('for browsing by category, use ae_list_services'). Perfect guidance for agent selection between discovery methods.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return value characteristics (pricing, SLA, schemas) but omits operational details like error handling (what if service_id is invalid?), idempotency/safety guarantees, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first defines the operation and payload, second establishes the workflow prerequisite. Information is front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by contextual usage. No redundant or filler text.

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?

Compensates effectively for the missing output schema by enumerating the specific fields returned (pricing, SLA, schemas). Provides sufficient context for a single-parameter lookup tool. Minor gap: does not mention error conditions or return format (JSON vs string), but complete enough for reliable invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (service_id has complete type, format, and description), the baseline is 3. The description references 'service' generally but does not add semantic nuance about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no examples of valid UUIDs or sourcing instructions).

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 ('Get') with clear resource ('service') and scope ('full details including pricing, SLA, and input/output schemas'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like ae_list_services (which returns summaries) and ae_discover_services (which finds services) by emphasizing comprehensive detail retrieval.

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

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

Explicitly states the workflow context: 'Call this before ae_create_transaction to understand what the service expects.' This provides clear temporal ordering and names a specific sibling tool as the downstream consumer, making the agent's decision logic unambiguous.

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 disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by noting the conditional nature of output ('if delivered') and listing return fields, but fails to declare idempotency, safety (read-only nature), or error behavior (e.g., handling of invalid transaction_id).

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?

Single efficient sentence is front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. The trailing clause 'including status, parties, pricing, and output if delivered' earns its place by compensating for the missing output schema. No redundant or tautological phrases.

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 single-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete by enumerating the specific fields returned (status, parties, pricing, output). It appropriately focuses on return value structure rather than error conditions, which is acceptable for a basic lookup 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (transaction_id described as 'UUID of the transaction'). The description does not mention the parameter explicitly, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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

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

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'transaction' and clarifies scope by enumerating returned fields (status, parties, pricing, output). The phrase 'output if delivered' implicitly distinguishes from sibling ae_deliver_output, while 'Get' contrasts with ae_create_transaction.

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 when-to-use guidance provided. While 'Get the current state' implies monitoring or verification use cases, the description lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., 'use after ae_create_transaction') or exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for undelivered transactions').

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 successfully discloses the computation methodology (what inputs factor into the score) but fails to confirm read-only safety, idempotency, rate limits, or return value structure that annotations would typically cover.

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

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

Two sentences with zero waste: the first establishes purpose, the second explains computational basis. 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?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool, but given the lack of output schema, the description should ideally specify the return format (numeric range? object? string?) and confirm the read-only nature of the 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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'agent_id' parameter, the schema fully documents inputs. The description mentions 'for an agent' which aligns with the parameter but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema's 'UUID of the agent' description.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trust score'), distinguishing it from sibling getters like ae_get_transaction or ae_get_wallet. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify when to prefer this over other agent-related queries.

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 explains what factors compute the trust score (transaction history, verification status, behavioral signals), providing implicit context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid UUID), return format, or what specific 'details' are included beyond balance.

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?

Single sentence, nine words, front-loaded with action verb. Zero redundancy; every word serves a purpose. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Adequate for a simple single-parameter getter with complete schema coverage. However, lacking both output schema and annotations, the description could have specified return structure or error conditions to be fully 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 coverage is 100% with agent_id fully documented as 'UUID of the agent'. Description mentions 'for an agent' providing minimal semantic context, but adds no syntax guidance or format details beyond the schema 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?

Specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'wallet balance and details'. Distinctly identifies this as a wallet retrieval operation, differentiating it from siblings like ae_get_service, ae_get_transaction, and ae_get_trust_score.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the agent must exist or be active). Zero explicit or implicit usage context 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'Browse' and mentions filtering/sorting support, but lacks disclosure of pagination behavior, return format, rate limits, or authorization requirements.

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

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

Three sentences with zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded ('Browse services...'), followed by capability hint ('Supports filtering and sorting'), and closes with sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

Given 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a listing tool. It establishes the marketplace scope and filtering capabilities. Minor gap: lacks explicit read-only declaration (though implied by 'Browse') which annotations would typically cover.

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 structured schema fully documents all 7 parameters (tags, limit, offset, sort_by, category, max_price_cents, min_trust_score). The description mentions 'filtering and sorting' generically but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 specific verb 'Browse' with clear resource 'services in the Remno marketplace'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'ae_discover_services' by contrasting browsing/filtering with semantic 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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use the tool ('For semantic search, use ae_discover_services instead'), providing clear guidance on tool selection between the listing and discovery 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 provided, so description carries full burden. States it 'submits' an action (implies mutation) but fails to disclose consequences of accept/reject (state changes, finality), reversibility, side effects on wallet/trust scores, or permissions required.

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

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

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose ('Submit...'), followed by capability enumeration. 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?

Adequate for a 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, but gaps remain: no output schema exists and description doesn't explain return values or transaction lifecycle state changes (what happens after accept/reject).

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 has 100% description coverage. Description maps 'counter-offers' to the 'counter' action and implies the relationship with proposed_price_cents, but adds no syntax details, format examples, or validation rules beyond the schema.

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

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

Description uses specific verb 'Submit' with clear resource 'negotiation action on a transaction' and distinguishes itself from siblings (create, get, list, deliver, verify) as the sole negotiation tool.

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?

Lists supported actions (counter-offers, accepting, rejecting) which implies usage scenarios, but lacks explicit workflow context (e.g., 'use after ae_create_transaction' or prerequisites) and doesn't mention when NOT to use it.

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 but only specifies input requirements. It fails to describe success behavior (e.g., returned service ID), reversibility, side effects, or marketplace lifecycle (immediate availability vs. pending review).

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 efficiently structured with the primary action first, followed by key requirements. It contains no redundant text, though its extreme brevity (essentially two clauses) under-serves the tool's complexity.

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 complex 12-parameter marketplace registration tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as return value structure, error conditions, or post-registration service states that would be necessary for correct agent invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is appropriately met. The description emphasizes the importance of schema and pricing parameters, but adds no additional semantics regarding parameter relationships (e.g., how pricing_model affects base_price_cents) or validation beyond the schema itself.

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 ('Register') and resource ('new service') with specific context ('Remno marketplace'). It identifies the tool's domain effectively, though it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling creation tools like ae_create_chain or ae_spawn_agent.

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 mentions required inputs ('Requires input/output JSON Schemas and pricing') but provides no guidance on when to use this versus ae_discover_services or ae_list_services, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or service readiness requirements.

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 discloses the implementation status (critical) and hints at delegation behavior, but omits details about side effects, persistence, or what the spawn operation returns.

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

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

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and scope, the second provides critical implementation status. No filler or redundant text.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and implementation status adequately. However, it lacks explanation of return values or side effects that would help an agent understand successful invocation outcomes.

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%, establishing baseline 3. The description mentions 'delegated budget' (aligning with budget_cents) and 'permissions' (adding conceptual context not explicitly parameterized), but does not expand on parameter syntax or relationships beyond the schema.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Spawn') with clear resource ('child agent') and distinguishes from siblings like ae_create_chain or ae_register_service by focusing on agent lifecycle management with delegated resources.

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 'Phase 3 — not yet implemented' warning provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance that prevents incorrect invocation. However, it lacks alternative suggestions for what to use instead (e.g., ae_create_chain for immediate needs).

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses critical financial side effects ('Accepting releases held funds to the provider') and authorization constraints. Missing details on rejection behavior (fund return mechanism) and idempotency.

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

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

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose declaration, authorization restriction, and side effect disclosure. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given the workflow context (evident from sibling tools) and complete schema coverage, the description adequately covers the critical behavioral aspects (financial release, role restriction). Minor gap regarding rejection path outcomes and return value structure.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the structured data fully documents parameters. Description adds no specific parameter guidance beyond the schema (e.g., doesn't explain the conditional requirement of rejection_reason beyond what the schema states).

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 provides specific verb+resource ('Accept or reject delivered output'), identifies the specific actor ('Only callable by the consumer agent'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like ae_deliver_output (provider-side) and ae_create_transaction (setup phase).

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

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

Explicitly restricts usage to the consumer agent role, providing clear context on who should invoke this tool. Lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., 'use after ae_deliver_output') or guidance on when to reject vs accept, preventing a 5.

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