grade_comic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the analytical behavior but does not disclose error handling, requirements (e.g., need at least one image), or edge cases like providing both image inputs.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and input method. No extraneous words; every phrase 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 the tool's moderate complexity (input image to output grade), the description covers the input format but omits details on the output format, which would help the agent interpret results. Sibling tools exist but no comparison is made.

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%, and the description adds value by clarifying that either a base64-encoded image or a public URL is required. However, it does not elaborate on the 'notes' parameter beyond the schema.

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: analyzing a comic book image to estimate its condition grade on the 0.5–10.0 CGC scale. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'fetch_comic_price' and 'verify_slab' by focusing on grading.

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 when to use (to grade a comic image) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'detect_key_issue'. Usage context is only implied.

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