Netbrain Integrated Solutions catalogue

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

The description explicitly discloses the read-only, non-sending behavior ('it reports the routes, it does not send anything'), which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. This reassures the agent that using the tool has no side effects, complementing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 concise yet informative, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the read-only clarification. Every sentence earns its place—the first defines what it does, the second enumerates the enquiry types, and the third clarifies behavioral safety.

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 zero parameters, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the routing categories, and the non-sending behavior, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics since there are none; the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to compensate for.

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: getting in touch with Netbrain and identifying which contact route suits various enquiry types. It explicitly lists the categories of enquiries (partnerships, white-labelling, research collaboration, platform access), which distinguishes it from sibling tools about products and capabilities.

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 clear context on when to use this tool—whenever an agent or user needs contact information or routing for specific enquiry types. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but given the sibling tools are product/capability-focused, the usage context is 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some useful context by indicating this is a direct slug-based lookup returning full detail rather than a search, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as error handling or missing-slug behavior. With annotations in place, 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?

Two short sentences carry the full message with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage caveat is placed second for easy skimming.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotation coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, how to invoke it, and how to find the slug when unknown.

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%: the only parameter, slug, already has a description and an enum of valid values. The description's 'by slug' is consistent but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a clear verb ('get'), a specific resource ('single Netbrain product or platform'), and the lookup key ('by slug'). It also distances itself from search_products by framing itself as a full-detail retrieval tool, so an agent can distinguish it from 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use an alternative: 'Use search_products first if you do not already know the slug.' This gives a concrete condition and directs the agent to the correct sibling tool.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: results are grouped by category and include 'capabilities and technologies' underneath, and the word 'Everything' signals exhaustive catalog coverage rather than a filtered subset.

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 no filler. The first sentence states the core function and structure; the second provides concrete usage triggers. Both sentences earn their 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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers scope, grouping, and when to use it. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, category, already has an enum and its own description. The tool description adds the idea of category grouping but not new parameter-level meaning, so the 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 names the resource ('Everything Netbrain builds') and the specific action (list/group capabilities and technologies by category). It also frames when this tool is the right choice ('open questions... where no single product is obviously the answer'), which helps distinguish it from product-specific 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?

The description gives explicit use cases with concrete example questions ('what does Netbrain do', 'can they help with X') and the condition 'where no single product is obviously the answer'. It does not name sibling alternatives like get_product or search_products, but the guidance is clear enough to route an agent appropriately.

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, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by stating that results include a relevance score and are sorted best-match-first. It also clarifies that search spans capabilities and technologies. It stops short of discussing pagination or result limits, but the output schema and safe-read annotations reduce that burden.

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 three sentences: scope, usage examples, and return behavior. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, and each sentence earns its place without repeating schema or annotation details.

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 search tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, this description covers selection, query phrasing, and return behavior well. The only notable gap is the absence of an explicit 'use get_product or list_capabilities when...' routing note, but that is not required for correct 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?

The input schema documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including descriptions for the listing and category enums, so the baseline is 3. The description's example queries add some flavor for the query parameter but no substantive meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Free-text search across every Netbrain product and platform', with a clear list of what is searched (names, descriptions, capabilities, technologies). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_product and list_capabilities because it is the only catalogue-wide search 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?

Provides concrete example queries and explicitly says 'Use this to answer questions like...', giving an agent strong guidance on when to invoke it. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some sibling selection to inference.

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