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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned but doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness. The description is purely functional without operational context that would help an agent use it safely and effectively.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that directly communicate the tool's function and output. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on specific data returned. There's no wasted text or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by incorporating the output details into the initial statement.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate functional information about what the tool does and what data it returns. However, without annotations and with sibling tools that might overlap in functionality, it lacks sufficient context about operational constraints, differentiation from alternatives, and error handling. The description is minimally complete but leaves gaps in practical usage guidance.

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 fully documents the single 'projectId' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (no format examples, validation rules, or relationship to other tools). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check the current milestone status of a project' with specific details about what information is provided (milestone position, released amount, remaining amount). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'agentfund_get_project' by focusing specifically on milestone tracking rather than general project information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'agentfund_generate_release_request' which might be related to milestone releases.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for checking milestone status, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable over 'agentfund_get_project' (which might include milestone data) or when to use 'agentfund_generate_release_request' instead. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or explicit 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool generates transaction data (not executes it) and that a funder sends ETH, which adds useful context about the workflow. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what the generated data looks like, leaving gaps for a mutation-related 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by role clarification and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary context without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (creating a fundraise with financial transactions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, roles, and basic workflow but misses details on return values, error cases, or security considerations, which could be important for an agent invoking this 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'milestones' and 'ETH' in context, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Generate transaction data for creating a new AgentFund fundraise'), identifies the resource (AgentFund fundraise), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on proposal creation rather than checking milestones, finding projects, generating release requests, getting projects, or getting stats. It explicitly mentions 'when you want to propose a project for funding,' which sets it apart from other tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this when you want to propose a project for funding') and clarifies the roles involved ('YOU provide your agent address... A FUNDER will execute this transaction'), which helps differentiate it from alternatives like checking milestones or finding projects. It implicitly excludes usage for other actions by focusing on initial proposal creation.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool finds projects based on an agent address, but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it returns all projects or is paginated, what the output format looks like (since no output schema), if there are rate limits, or any authentication requirements. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds usage context. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (a query operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values include (e.g., project details, statuses) or behavioral aspects like pagination. For a tool that likely returns multiple projects, more context on output and limitations is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'agentAddress' documented as 'Your wallet address to search for.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating 'a specific address' without providing additional context like format examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find all AgentFund projects where a specific address is the agent (recipient).' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('AgentFund projects'), and scope ('where a specific address is the agent'), distinguishing it from siblings like agentfund_get_project (which likely gets a single project). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from agentfund_get_stats, which might also involve project data, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Use this to find projects you're fundraising for.' This suggests the tool is for agents to locate their own projects, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., agentfund_get_project for a specific project ID) or any exclusions. No clear when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a transaction for the funder to sign, implying a read-only or generation operation without direct fund release. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the transaction is reversible, rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves gaps for a mutation-related 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently uses two sentences: one for the action and one for the context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (generating a financial transaction), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and usage context but omits behavioral details like response format, error conditions, or security requirements. This leaves the agent with gaps in understanding the full operation.

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 both parameters ('projectId' and 'completedWork'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'completedWork' relates to milestone completion. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a milestone release request' with the specific action of creating a transaction for fund release. It distinguishes from siblings like 'agentfund_check_milestone' or 'agentfund_get_project' by focusing on post-completion fund release rather than status checking or project retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 for when to use this tool: 'After completing work for a milestone'. This implicitly distinguishes it from tools like 'agentfund_create_fundraise' (pre-funding) or 'agentfund_get_stats' (analytics). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, preventing a score of 5.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields but doesn't cover error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and parameter, the second enumerates return values. Every element adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return fields. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, and exact response structure, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 the single parameter 'projectId'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('AgentFund project by ID'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on retrieving comprehensive project information rather than creating, listing, or managing milestones/funds.

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 usage when project details are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'agentfund_find_my_projects' for listing or 'agentfund_get_stats' for aggregated data. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves statistical data. It mentions what data is fetched but doesn't describe the return structure, data types, or any behavioral context like permissions or limitations. For a read operation with zero structured metadata, more detail would help the agent use it effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, where minimal description is sufficient.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('AgentFund platform statistics'), specifying what data is retrieved ('total projects created and contract address'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'agentfund_get_project' which gets individual project details rather than platform-wide stats. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'agentfund_find_my_projects' for project-related queries or 'agentfund_get_project' for specific project details. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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