Pionra

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come from Pionra and can be filtered by budget/rooms, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as result ordering, URL/locale behavior (though lang schema covers this), or pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then immediately states the key filters. 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 read-only listing tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core intent and main filters. It does not clarify whether a city is expected for meaningful results, nor does it explain what the returned listings look like. Given the annotations already handle safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 only 20% (only 'lang' is described), so the description must compensate. It usefully maps 'city' to city, 'budget' to max_price, and 'room count' to min_rooms. However, it omits 'limit' and 'lang'; lang is already described in the schema, but limit is left undocumented in both. The mapping is helpful but incomplete.

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 ('Find'), a concrete resource ('housing listings on Pionra'), and the key filtering dimensions (city, budget, room count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_jobs and search_pionra; an agent can infer what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when the user wants housing listings on Pionra, filtered by city/budget/rooms. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer find_housing over search_pionra or find_jobs, and no exclusions are stated, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Find' is consistent with those. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations state, such as locale-dependent response text or limit 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence: verb, resource, and filter dimensions with no filler or repeated information. It is appropriately economical for the tool's 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 schema covers some parameters, and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile, but the description is not fully self-sufficient: it omits the limit parameter, leaves the lang/language distinction ambiguous, and does not describe the return value shape in the absence of an output schema. It is adequate but has clear 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 description helps give meaning to 'city', which lacks a schema description, and mentions contract type)Skip and language. However, it does not mention the limit parameter, and its use of 'language' is ambiguous because the schema defines both lang (output locale) and language (listing language), which the description does not clarify.

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 ('Find'), a concrete resource ('job listings on Pionra'), and the filter dimensions (city, language, contract type). It stands apart from sibling tools like find_housing, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the broader search_pionra 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_pionra, no when-not-to-use instructions, and no mention of prerequisites or fallback behavior. The use case is only implied by the verb and noun.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it returns a community hub plus recent posts, but it does not add further behavioral context such as response shape, pagination behavior, or how the limit parameter applies. 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, focused sentence that states the tool's purpose without filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. No word is wasted.

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 read-only lookup with one required parameter and annotations covering side effects, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema, it only vaguely indicates what is returned ('hub plus recent posts') and does not clarify response format or how limit interacts with the posts. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent selecting the 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%; country_code and lang have descriptions, while limit does not. The description does not explain parameter semantics beyond mentioning country code, and it leaves the meaning of limit ambiguous. It adds little value over the existing schema, though the schema already covers most 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Pionra community hub plus recent posts for a given country code.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like list_communities by focusing on a single country-specific hub with recent posts. It does not explicitly contrast it with get_guide or list_communities, but the purpose is otherwise 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 phrase 'for a given country code' implies the tool is appropriate when the caller has a specific country code and wants a community hub plus posts. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to sibling tools such as list_communities or search_pionra. Usage context is implied rather than clearly 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?

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing the return format (full guide as Markdown body) and the locale-matching behavior when a translation exists, which informs the agent about output expectations and localization.

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 clear sentences, the first front-loads the core action and resource, and the second adds the locale behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the tool name 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 does explain the return type (Markdown body) and locale behavior, covering the most important operational aspects. It does not describe error or edge cases (e.g., when no translation or no match exists), but for a read-only tool with all-optional parameters and strong annotations, it is largely 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%, so each parameter is already well documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the id vs query distinction and the locale behavior, but does not add substantive new meaning beyond what the schema already says about each parameter.

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 (Fetch a full Pionra guide) and specifies the resource with its format (Markdown body), along with the two lookup modes: by public id or by search query. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on housing, jobs, communities, or publishing, and from search_pionra, which likely returns search results rather than full guides.

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 conveys when to use the id vs query, but it never explicitly addresses when to choose this tool over siblings like search_pionra or get_community. Usage guidance is implied through the two lookup modes rather than explicitly stating 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?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the description does not need to restate those. It adds little beyond the query-match behavior and does not disclose ordering, pagination, or localization default behavior, which are minor for a listing 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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though it stays close to the title and could have used the available space to add one more behavioral or scoping detail.

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, optional-parameter listing tool with read-only and idempotent annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The lack of an output schema and any mention of result shape or defaults is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 documents lang and query with useful descriptions; limit only has min/max bounds. The description's 'match a query' reinforces the query parameter but adds no new meaning for limit or lang. With 2 of 3 parameters already described in the schema, this is adequate.

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 resource ('Pionra country communities'), and adds scoping with 'match a query.' It is clearly distinct from singular get_community, though it does not explicitly name siblings for full 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 usage context is implied: use this when you want a query-based list of communities rather than a single record. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over search_pionra or get_community, and no exclusions are 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the post enters a moderation queue before going live, and it requires a specific API key format. It also notes the same rate limits as the referenced endpoint. It doesn't describe failure modes or what happens on moderation rejection, but the moderation-queue disclosure is meaningful context that annotations don't provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action and scope in the first sentence, then covers auth and rate limits in the second. It doesn't waste words, though it could arguably be slightly more structured with the type list. Overall it earns its place without 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?

For a 33-parameter publish tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the supported types, auth requirements, and the moderation behavior. It doesn't explain return values or error handling, but the schema covers parameters and the description covers the key behavioral context. The main gap is that it doesn't clarify which optional parameters apply to which post types, but that's a schema-level concern rather than a description-level one.

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 all 33 parameters. The description adds a little semantic value by grouping the supported types and noting the moderation queue, but it doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., which fields apply to which post types) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 states a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('a guide, question, blog post, classified listing, marketplace item, or service offer to Pionra'), enumerates the supported types, and clearly distinguishes this from sibling read/search tools. It also adds the moderation-queue behavior, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 (to publish content to Pionra) and provides the required auth mechanism (Bearer API key) plus a link to generate one. It also references the same auth and rate limits as POST /api/ai/publish, giving the agent a concrete alternative/reference point. Sibling tools are all read/search tools, so no confusion about when to use this one.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that events are upcoming and filterable, which is useful but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, auth requirements, or response structure. With annotations present, 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?

Single sentence, twelve words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No 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?

For a read-only listing tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and two filter dimensions but omits the limit parameter and any indication of pagination or response format. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves some exploration to the agent.

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 50% (date and lang have descriptions; city and limit do not). The description adds filter semantics for city and date, partially compensating, but limit remains undocumented outside the schema, and lang's behavior is only in the schema. It adds some meaning beyond schema but not complete.

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 ('List'), resource ('upcoming Pionra events'), and optional filters ('by city and date'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_housing, find_jobs, and search_pionra, which target different 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 description implies the tool is for retrieving upcoming events, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over search_pionra or other siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions. The use case is clear from the resource named, but no alternatives or conditions 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail—'citation-ready links'—but does not describe result format, ordering, or pagination. Given the annotations, 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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently lists the content domains and the citation-link benefit. It could add sibling differentiation or mention optional filters, but that is more of a completeness concern than a conciseness issue.

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 description is serviceable for a read-only search tool: it names the domains and output outcome, and the schema covers parameters. However, there is no output schema and no guidance on selecting this tool over find_housing or find_jobs, so an agent still faces meaningful ambiguity.

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 describes query, lang, and intent, but the limit parameter has no description beyond min/max constraints. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. With 75% schema coverage, the schema does most of the work, so a mid-range score 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 clear verb ('Search') and names the resource (Pionra) plus the covered content types: guides, housing, jobs, communities, events, and directory pages. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from specialized siblings like find_housing or find_jobs; the broad scope is implied rather than contrasted.

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 given about when to use this broad search tool versus the specialized sibling tools. The description implies the multi-category scope, but it does not state exclusions or name alternatives, leaving the choice to inference.

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