GAUGE preview & pricing menu (free)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is free and provides preview data, but does not mention idempotency, read-only nature, or any side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 only two sentences, each concise and informative. It is front-loaded with the key offerings and ends with 'Free.' No superfluous words; every part 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's output: coverage counts, pricing, and bundle lists. It does not detail return format or pagination, but for a free preview tool with zero inputs, this is largely sufficient. A small gap but mostly 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline score is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the tool offers without parameters, but does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. Scoring 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 tool provides 'GAUGE coverage counts, à-la-carte pricing menu, and the lists of region/company bundles.' It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings by noting it is free and for discovering what to buy. This makes the 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 advises 'Use this to discover what to buy,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply other tools are for specific risk assessments. The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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