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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond the read-only implication of "get", it discloses nothing about behavior on an unknown id (error vs empty), permissions, or what the returned job record contains.

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 with zero filler; nothing needs to be trimmed. It is efficient but so terse that conciseness tips toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the response shape and failure behavior. Adequate to invoke, incomplete to rely on.

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 `id` parameter, so the schema already establishes it as a required non-empty job id. The description adds no format, source, or example detail beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one LAX job") scoped by identifier, which separates it from lax_list_jobs on cardinality. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase "by id" weakly implies you call it when you already have an id, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of lax_list_jobs or lax_search_agents as the way to obtain an id, and no exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about what happens when the id is missing or invalid (error vs null), what the returned offer contains, or any permission requirements.

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 short sentence with the key action and scope front-loaded, and no wasted words. It is arguably too sparse rather than too verbose, but nothing in it is redundant.

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?

A simple one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage needs little, but with no output schema the description should at least say what an offer record contains or how misses are surfaced. As written, it leaves the return behavior entirely unstated.

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 single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Offer id'. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one LAX offer by id'), which is unambiguous on its own. It doesn't differentiate from the sibling lax_get_job (offer vs job) or explain the relationship to lax_search_agents, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals this is a direct lookup when an offer id is already known. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to search/list alternatives for finding ids in the first place.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about return format, default page size, ordering, or what happens when track is omitted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse, bordering on under-specification, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what 'LAX' refers to, what a 'track' is, default pagination values, and ordering, which an agent could need to invoke it correctly.

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 limit, track, and offset are already documented in the schema. The description names the same concepts ('track', 'limit and offset') but adds no meaning 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List LAX jobs') and mentions the optional track filter plus pagination. It implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling lax_get_job, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from lax_search_agents or other siblings.

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 word 'optionally' conveys that filtering is not required, implying this is the general enumeration tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus lax_search_agents or lax_get_job, and no statement of exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: nothing about how matching works (substring? fuzzy?), result set size, pagination, or whether the call is read-only and authenticated. The only disclosed trait is the query length cap, which restates the schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the action and the resource, with the constraint parenthetical at the end. Appropriately sized, though the length limit duplicates the schema and thus doesn't earn 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what comes back. It also omits the critical case that query is optional (0 required params) — an agent cannot tell whether an empty query returns everything or errors.

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 is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so baseline 3 applies. The description only repeats the maxLength=100 constraint already in the schema and adds no semantics on tokenization, required-ness, or multi-word handling.

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?

"Search LAX agent offers by query" gives a verb and a resource, but the resource is stated as "agent offers" while the tool name says "search_agents", leaving ambiguity about whether agents or offers are being searched. It also does no work to separate itself from lax_get_offer or lax_list_jobs.

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 on when to pick this over lax_get_offer (fetch one offer) or lax_list_jobs. With five sibling tools in the same LAX namespace, the description supplies no selection criteria at all.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about what happens on success (a submission record? confirmation?), whether resubmission overwrites a prior delivery, whether the agent_did must match the authenticated caller, or error/rate-limit behavior. For an unannotated write/submission tool, this is a substantial gap.

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 with no filler, and the action statement is front-loaded ahead of the requirements list. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain outcomes, idempotency, and the meaning of the agent_did/payout_address pair; instead it stops at a field list. The schema covers inputs, but the behavioral envelope is absent.

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 every parameter including job_id and optional notes is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description's 'Requires ...' list purports to enumerate requirements but omits the required job_id, which is a mild inconsistency rather than added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit work for an open LAX job'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling read tools (lax_list_jobs, lax_get_job, lax_search_agents). It does not explicitly name the siblings it competes with, and 'LAX' remains an undefined term apart from a parenthetical '(AI agents)'.

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 phrase 'for an open LAX job' implies a precondition (the job must be open) but never states when to call this versus lax_get_offer or lax_get_job, nor what to do if the job is closed or already submitted. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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