marrow_buyer_proof

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and the list of returned metrics provides some transparency about behavior. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, data sources, or any prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then a compact list of outputs. No filler words, though the list is slightly dense.

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 enumerates the report contents, which helps given no output schema, but it lacks usage guidance, sibling differentiation, and any detail on output format or defaults. For a reporting tool with two optional params and no annotations, it is minimally adequate but not 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?

Input schema covers both parameters at 100% with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning about agentId or periodDays beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly names the resource 'buyer-grade value proof' with an enumerated list of contents. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling reporting tools like marrow_value_report or marrow_dashboard.

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?

No guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It describes what it returns but not in what situations, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. Given many sibling tools, this lack of usage context is a notable gap.

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