AIC — agent-native credits (read-only)

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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: seller names/descriptions are unverified, offers and prices are seller-declared, and the pre-payment quote is final.

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 front-loaded and compact. Every clause adds useful information: search dimensions, sorting, trust warning, offer shape, price units, and quote finality.

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

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

With no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, the definition still explains what sellers are returned, how they can be sorted, what offers contain, and the trust/pricing caveats. It remains somewhat incomplete on pagination/limit behavior and the exact response shape.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps the main search dimensions (free text, skill id, tag) and sort options (reputation or registration time), but it omits the limit parameter and does not clarify combination behavior among q, tag, and skill.

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 a specific verb and resource: searching listed sellers by free text, skill id, or tag. It distinguishes this directory search from supply/join workflows implicitly, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the search framing, but the description does not say when to use this tool versus aic_supply or aic_join_guide, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate for selecting the tool but leaves routing to inference.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned payload: join steps, URLs, domain proof for buyer/seller, the client bundle with its sha256, and applicable limits — the checksum detail in particular signals a verification step an agent should perform.

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

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

A single sentence that front-loads the actionable content (steps and URLs) and then lists the secondary payload items. No filler, no repetition of 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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by enumerating every payload component. For a zero-parameter static reference tool, nothing an agent needs before calling 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema, and no parameter meaning needs to be conveyed.

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 precisely: onboarding steps and URLs for joining as buyer or seller, plus the client bundle and checksum. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools aic_directory_search and aic_supply, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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

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

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it should call this when it wants to join the network. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the sibling tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the figures are public and that the policy is automatic with a per-domain grant, daily budget and usage-today figures, but says nothing about data freshness or how the numbers are scoped.

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 the headline content first and the policy detail in a compact parenthetical. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description effectively previews the return contents (supply, reconciliation, grant, budget, usage today). Only the interpretation of those values — units, freshness, currency — is left unstated.

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

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

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical does clarify the internal components of the issuance policy, which is useful framing even without 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 names the concrete payload — public supply figures, reconciliation status, and the automatic issuance policy with its three components — so an agent knows what it returns. It stops short of a verb or of distinguishing itself from aic_join_guide, which the title suggests also touches join policy.

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 statement and no mention of the sibling tools. The content list only weakly implies that you call this when you need supply or policy figures, leaving the choice against aic_join_guide to inference.

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