marrow_first_value

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and state changes itself. It only lists return values and doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or could modify data. It fails to carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure.

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 with no redundant filler. However, it is jargon-heavy ('outcome closure/runtime gate') and could be more readable. It earns points for brevity but isn't a model of clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values and usage context. It lists return items but leaves 'Marrow value proof,' 'first-run,' and the relationship to other tools unexplained. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand when and why 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the JSON schema already documents all eight parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 says it returns a 'value proof' with specific items, but the core function is vague—'proof' could mean verification, demonstration, or reporting. It doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like marrow_value_report or marrow_buyer_proof, which likely serve similar purposes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'First-run' hints at an initial onboarding scenario, but the description doesn't state exclusions, prerequisites, or which sibling tools to prefer for other situations.

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