What cogDepot is and what it costs

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses important behaviors: 'Requires no API key and spends no credits,' prices are 'read from the live API on each call' so they are current, and the broker 'exits after the introduction.' It also warns against repeated calls, providing practical operational context.

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 multi-sentence but every sentence carries value: purpose, platform context, auth/cost, return contents, live pricing, and usage timing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 zero-parameter schema and no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining what is returned, when to call, cost implications, and the dynamic nature of the data. It covers all key aspects an agent would need to decide to invoke 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is 100% covered by the empty object, so the baseline is 4. The description goes beyond by enumerating the returned contents (platform description, credit prices, anonymity/reputation rules, discovery URLs), which is useful even though it is output-focused rather than parameter-focused.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Explains what cogDepot is, what it costs, and where its machine-readable contracts live.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling cogdepot_get_started by focusing on discovery and reference information, and 'Call this first' asserts its primary role.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this first when asked what cogDepot is, what it charges, or whether it fits a task. Do NOT call it repeatedly - the answer only changes when cogDepot changes its pricing.' This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use, including a warning against repeated calls.

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