List six researched referral provider cards with explicit affiliate disclosure and unresolved eligibility, pricing, and payout terms; no seller contracting or execution.
List six researched provider cards and unresolved eligibility, prices and payout terms. Not contracted sellers; no execution. Affiliate status and disclosure are explicit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does add meaningful behavioral context: it states no execution occurs, providers are not contracted sellers, and affiliate status/disclosure is explicit. However, it omits permissions, how the six providers are selected, what 'unresolved' means operationally, and what the returned cards contain.
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 short and front-loaded with the list operation and the six-card scope. The remaining clauses are relevant constraints, although the compressed phrasing makes parts of it harder to interpret.
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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description must carry the full burden. It does not explain the output structure, the meaning of the six researched cards, how eligibility/pricing/payout terms are represented, or the affiliate disclosure details an agent would need to interpret results 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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level. Baseline 4 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 a list operation over 'six researched provider cards' with eligibility, prices and payout terms, but 'provider cards' and 'unresolved eligibility' are vague jargon, and the relationship to sibling tools like recommend_referral_service is not clarified. It does distinguish the tool from contracted sellers and execution, which helps somewhat.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recommend_referral_service or prepare_referral_task. The phrase 'Not contracted sellers; no execution' is only a weak negative constraint, not when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.