free_sample

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the limited promo and treat types, but lacks details about statefulness (e.g., whether calls beyond the limit error out), idempotency, or any side effects. Basic transparency but not comprehensive.

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 efficiently conveys the key points: limited promo, treat types, and exhaustion behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema and few structural supports. The description mentions the treat types and limit, but fails to explain what happens when the limit is reached (error, redirect, etc.) or how the limit is tracked. This leaves ambiguity for the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description for the only parameter ('agent_name') adds a whimsical note ('for the record books') but no additional semantic or constraint beyond the schema description.

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's a limited promo for a free premium treat, specifying the types (poem, horoscope, prompt roast). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'compliment' or 'fun_fact' that also provide content, so differentiation is weak.

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 context: first 100 agents only, after that use the store. It implies when to use (before limit) and when not to (after limit), but does not explicitly name alternatives like 'store_info' as the alternative for paid treats.

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