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

The description complements the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the exact data returned (email, name, account status, wallet balance). No contradictions are present. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or authorization details beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose and key return fields. No extraneous text is present.

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 has no parameters and a straightforward read-only purpose, the description sufficiently indicates what data will be returned. However, it could be slightly more complete by clarifying that the info is for the authenticated user's account, though this is implied.

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 zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description's mention of returned fields does not relate to parameters.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Listing Bureau account info', listing the specific fields (email, name, account status, wallet balance). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like lb_account_get_service_rates and lb_account_get_subscription which focus on subsets of account data.

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 such as lb_wallet_get_balance (which also returns wallet balance) or lb_account_get_subscription. It does not mention any prerequisites, authentication requirements, or exclusion criteria.

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?

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that the tool returns an empty object when no plan is active. This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotation.

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 consists of two short sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and a key behavioral detail. No extraneous words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 fully explains what the tool returns (current rates or empty object), which is sufficient for a parameterless read-only tool without an output schema. It leaves no ambiguity for an AI agent.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline score of 4 applies as there are no gaps to address.

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 'Get' and resource 'current Listing Bureau service pricing rates', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lb_account_get or lb_account_get_subscription. The edge case of returning an empty object if no plan is active adds precision.

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?

While the description does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, it clearly defines the output, helping an agent decide based on the need for pricing rates. The context is implied by the tool's purpose, which is adequate for a simple read operation.

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description aligns with that. The description adds context about the specific fields returned, which helps the agent understand the outcome. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, null handling) are disclosed, but given the simple read operation, it is sufficient.

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 immediately states the purpose and lists the key result fields in parentheses. No unnecessary words or information.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information to understand what the tool does and what it returns. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating the structure of the response, but it is largely sufficient.

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 no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not need to add param info, but it does list the returned fields, which is helpful but not parameter-related.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Listing Bureau subscription info', and lists specific data items (plan label, fee, discount, wallet usage). This distinguishes it from siblings like lb_account_get (general account info) and lb_account_get_service_rates.

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 that this tool is for retrieving subscription info, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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?

Annotations include idempotentHint: true, and the description describes the update operation. It adds the behavioral constraint that at least one field is required. No contradiction with annotations. More details on side effects or auth requirements would improve, but current is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, 15 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. No redundant information. Efficiently conveys purpose and key constraint.

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 update tool with 3 optional fields and no output schema, the description covers what it does and the required constraint. It lacks return value information (e.g., returns updated profile or empty), but overall it is sufficiently complete given the low complexity.

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 has 100% description coverage (each param described as 'New first/last/company name'). The description lists the fields and adds the constraint that at least one field is required, which is not present in the schema's required array. This adds value 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?

Description clearly states the action (update), resource (Listing Bureau account profile), and specific fields (first_name, last_name, company). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like lb_account_get (read-only). The constraint 'at least one field required' adds specificity.

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: when you need to update those three profile fields. It states the requirement that at least one field must be provided. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the context is clear given sibling tools.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms it's an estimation (no commitment). Adds value by detailing what is computed (total cost, daily averages, wallet sustainability) and regional behavior differences (SFB US-only, ATC/PGV lower outside US). No contradictions.

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?

Description is compact, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds necessary information. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 (7 params, two modes) and no output schema, the description covers input usage well but lacks details about the output format (e.g., structure of computed costs and sustainability). Generally sufficient for an estimation 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. Description adds contextual meaning beyond schema (e.g., two-volume modes, dual use of retail_price for SFB accuracy). Provides clarity not found in schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool estimates campaign cost before committing. It specifies what it does (fetches rates and balance, computes costs and sustainability) and is unique among siblings (no other cost estimation tool).

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?

Explicitly describes two usage modes (uniform daily volumes or per-day schedule) and conditions for SFB (US only) and retail_price requirement. Provides clear guidance on when to use region parameter.

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?

Description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (idempotentHint=false). It lacks details on confirmation, side effects, or whether submission creates a record. Annotations already indicate non-idempotent 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?

Single, concise sentence with necessary length constraint. Front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly expanded.

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?

Adequate for a simple, single-parameter tool with no output schema. However, lacks details on expected behavior after submission (e.g., confirmation, storage).

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% with a description for the feedback parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, baseline of 3.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('feedback'), and specifies the content type and length constraint. It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but no siblings perform similar functions. Usage is implied by the name and description.

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?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already informs the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating it returns 'detailed info'.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose with zero wasted words.

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 get operation with one parameter and a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficiently complete. It might benefit from specifying what 'detailed info' includes, but not critical.

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% with one parameter described as 'Order identifier'. The description does not add semantic meaning 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'order' with 'Listing Bureau' qualifier. It clearly distinguishes from sibling lb_orders_list (list vs get single).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the name implies it is for fetching a single order. No mention of alternatives like lb_orders_list for listing.

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?

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing returned fields and pagination behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond safety guarantees.

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 that is short, front-loaded with action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part conveys essential information efficiently.

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 list tool with pagination and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and key returned fields. No obvious gaps given the low complexity and adequate annotations.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both page and per_page. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 it lists orders with pagination and newest-first ordering, and specifies included fields like status, campaign, region, issue report status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lb_orders_get (single order) and lb_orders_report_issue (issue submission).

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 pagination and ordering but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get for a specific order). No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names 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?

Annotations only show not idempotent. The description adds the limit per order and that retrying on limit error should not occur, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, no wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 two parameters are fully described in the schema and the description covers the essential behavior and constraints, it is complete enough for this simple tool without output schema.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the constraint about a maximum of 5 reports per order, which is not in the schema, providing additional semantic context.

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 'Report an issue with a Listing Bureau order' which uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lb_orders_get and lb_orders_list which are for retrieval.

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: 'Maximum 5 issue reports per order -- do not retry if you receive a limit error.' This tells the agent when to stop, though it doesn't compare to alternatives (there are none obvious).

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?

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context by specifying it's a 'soft delete' and describing reactivation. This goes beyond the annotation, clarifying the nature of the destruction and reversibility.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides important reactivation context. No superfluous text, front-loaded with key information.

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 simple input schema (one required parameter) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how to undo it, and the parameter is clear from the schema. No gaps.

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% for the single parameter ui_id, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 archives (soft deletes) a project, distinguishing it from siblings like create, update, list, etc. The verb 'Archive' and resource 'Listing Bureau Amazon project' are specific and unambiguous.

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 reactivation guidance ('can be reactivated by creating a new project with the same ASIN+keyword+region'), which helps the agent understand post-archive behavior. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs other tools, but the context of sibling tools and the action 'archive' makes usage clear.

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?

Discloses the reactive behavior beyond annotations (idempotentHint: false). Adds context that expected_retail_price is needed for cost estimation and holds. Could mention permissions or rate limits, but the behavior is well-described.

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, reactivation behavior, and parameter constraints. No redundant information; each sentence adds essential detail. Front-loaded with main action.

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 create tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers behavior, constraints, and optional parameter purpose. Could mention error cases or ID generation, but the information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining the purpose of expected_retail_price ('Required for SFB cost estimation and holds') and reinforces constraints on ASIN and keyword. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a new Listing Bureau Amazon project' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like lb_projects_archive or lb_projects_get by focusing on creation and reactivation behavior.

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?

Provides context that reactivation occurs for archived projects with the same triple, and specifies constraints on ASIN and keyword. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is clear and no direct alternatives exist.

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about the returned data (schedule, services, SERP data), which goes beyond the annotation and clarifies the tool's behavior. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action, resource, and scope of data returned.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the input (unique ID) and the output scope (detailed info including schedule, services, SERP data), making it complete for use.

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 covers 100% of parameters (ui_id) with a description, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Project unique identifier'.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed info for a specific Listing Bureau project', listing included data (schedule, services, SERP data), and distinguishes from sibling tools like lb_projects_list (list) or lb_projects_get_stats (stats).

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 for getting a single project's details, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., when requesting full details vs metadata), nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the call may be slow (~1-2s) due to 14+ backend queries, adding valuable performance 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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a crucial performance note concisely.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the types of data retrieved and the performance characteristic, but could mention if results are paginated or if there are limits.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 gets daily stats for a Listing Bureau project, listing specific data types (SFB, ATC, PGV, SERP rankings, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lb_projects_get.

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 for retrieving project stats but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. However, it adds the returned fields but does not disclose pagination, sorting, rate limits, or other behavioral traits that could affect usage.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and efficient, containing all essential information without extraneous words.

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 covers what the tool returns but lacks information on default behavior, pagination, ordering, or result limits. Given the simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), it is minimally adequate but has gaps.

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 both parameters are fully described. The description mentions 'optional filters' but does not add additional meaning 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 lists projects with optional filters and specifies the returned fields (ASIN, keyword, active status, service volumes). It is distinct from sibling tools like lb_projects_get (single project) and lb_projects_archive.

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 for listing projects with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lb_projects_get or lb_projects_get_stats. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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?

Descriptions adds behavioral context: toggling active status (pause/resume). Annotations already provide idempotentHint, and description does not contradict. No side effects detailed, but sufficient for this simple update.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no wasted words.

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 update tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and alternative, making it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description primarily restates schema descriptions (e.g., 'Set active status (true=resume, false=pause)') without adding new semantics.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a Listing Bureau project' with specific verb and resource, and specifies that it currently only supports toggling active status. This differentiates it from sibling tools like lb_projects_archive.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (to toggle active status) and when not to use ('To archive a project, use lb_projects_archive instead'), providing clear guidance.

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?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context (per-day volumes, SFB regional limitation) without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first states purpose, the second adds data specifics and a regional note. No extraneous content.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail on output content and a constraint, making it self-contained.

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 100% of parameters with a description for ui_id. The description adds no further parameter details, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 retrieves the current schedule for a Listing Bureau project, listing specific data types (atc, sfb, pgv) and a regional note. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lb_projects_get (project details) or lb_schedule_set (modifying schedule).

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 for viewing schedules, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like lb_projects_get_stats. However, the sibling context and clear purpose make it reasonably clear.

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?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'This clears any existing per-day schedule and replaces it with uniform values,' and notes defaulting behavior and regional restrictions. This provides context beyond annotations.

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 concise at two sentences: first stating purpose, second providing critical warnings and defaults. No superfluous words, well-structured for quick consumption.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers purpose, destructive behavior, defaults, and regional constraints. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable as there is no output schema. Slightly incomplete for agents needing error handling details, but overall adequate.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema already include default values and regional notes (e.g., 'default 0', 'US-region projects only'). The tool description essentially repeats this information without adding new semantic value, so baseline 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: 'Quick-set uniform daily volumes for a Listing Bureau project.' It specifies the verb ('quick-set'), resource ('uniform daily volumes'), and context ('Listing Bureau project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like lb_schedule_set which likely supports more granular scheduling.

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 important usage guidance: warning that it clears existing schedules, defaults omitted fields to 0, and regional restrictions for SFB (US only) and ATC/PGV (all regions but lower outside US). It does not explicitly mention when to use this vs alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the 'quick-set' name imply it's for uniform schedules.

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?

Annotations indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral details such as replacing existing schedules, regional restrictions for SFB, and lower execution rates outside the US for ATC/PGV, which are not covered by annotations.

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 concise: three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and follows with constraints. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and annotation coverage (destructive, idempotent), the description adequately explains what the tool does and its constraints. It could optionally mention the return value (e.g., success/failure) but is not strictly necessary.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats some schema notes (region restrictions) and states the max entries (which is in schema as maxItems). No additional semantic value beyond what schema provides.

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 it sets the full per-day schedule for a Listing Bureau project, replacing any existing schedule. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'lb_schedule_get' (retrieval) and implies a contrast with 'lb_schedule_quick_set' (likely less comprehensive).

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 use: full schedule replacement with up to 365 entries and regional constraints. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'lb_schedule_quick_set' or state when to prefer this tool over 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by mentioning a potential warning if data is temporarily unavailable, informing the agent of possible non-standard behavior beyond the annotation.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and include relevant details without waste. Every sentence 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, return values, and a potential edge case (warning). It is complete for its complexity level.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by specifying what the tool returns (credits and USD) and a warning, which is sufficient for zero-parameter tools.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get Listing Bureau wallet balance' with specifics 'credits and USD', making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like 'lb_wallet_get_transactions'.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided, but the simple nature of the tool implies usage for checking balance. Context is clear but lacks guidance on exclusions or when not to use.

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?

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing pagination behavior and the note about legacy entries exceeding per_page count. This helps the agent anticipate edge cases.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the core function and a critical behavioral nuance (legacy entries). No extraneous words; front-loaded with the primary action.

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 paginated list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It might have benefited from mentioning the return format, but the key behavioral constraint (legacy entries) is included.

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% with standard parameter descriptions. The description mentions pagination generally but does not add new semantics beyond what the input schema already provides for page and per_page.

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 retrieves 'Listing Bureau wallet transaction history' with pagination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lb_wallet_get_balance. The verb 'Get' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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 paginated retrieval but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. However, sibling tools have distinct purposes (e.g., balance, orders), so usage context is clear, lacking only explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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?

Description says 'generate URL' which is read-only, but annotation destructiveHint suggests mutation. No clarification that actual balance change occurs later via Stripe. Minimal behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and outcome.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter. States purpose and return value. Could mention that it does not directly modify balance.

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 already describes the amount parameter with min/max. Description adds no further semantic value, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score 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?

Clearly states it generates a Stripe checkout URL for wallet top-up and returns a URL. Distinguished from sibling read tools like lb_wallet_get_balance.

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?

Implies usage when needing to add funds, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Lacks guidance on prerequisites or context.

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