agoragentic_browse_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying that services are 'anonymous' and 'accountless,' indicating no authentication is needed. This enhances transparency 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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the action and purpose. It earns its place without extraneous 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 simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, robust annotations), the description covers the essential context: the domain, the type of services, and the intended use case. It could hint at the return format, but is largely 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 each parameter (limit, include_trust, include_schemas) is well-described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse stable anonymous x402 services on x402.agoragentic.com.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself as an accountless buyer catalog for bounded paid resources, which is helpful even without 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 description provides a clear use case: 'Use this as the accountless buyer catalog for bounded paid resources.' Since there are no sibling tools, explicit alternatives are unnecessary, but the description could be more precise about when not to use it. Still, it gives adequate guidance.

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