agent_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. While it implies a read-only operation (providing intelligence), it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any security, rate limiting, or data handling characteristics. The description is informative but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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, using only a few sentences. It front-loads the core function, then lists the outputs, and ends with usage context. No redundancy or filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 provides essential context: it fits into a broader workflow (after lookup_merchant, before payment) and lists what the tool returns. While it does not describe an output schema (none exists), it covers the primary aspects an agent needs to decide when to call and what to expect. Minor gap: it doesn't mention error cases or fallback behavior, but that is not critical for typical usage.

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 has one parameter, 'slug', with a description: 'Cleared listing slug or origin (e.g. taylor-good-agents)'. The description further clarifies that it accepts a slug or origin, matching the schema. The example provides concrete guidance, though it does not specify the exact format or constraints beyond that.

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 purpose: providing routing intelligence for a listing, including verdict, when-to-call, settle posture, endpoint hints, and payToMismatch. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focused role in the merchant lookup and payment flow.

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'Call after lookup_merchant before paying an unknown merchant.' It also clarifies the accepted input (slug or origin), giving the agent a clear trigger and context.

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