fittin_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($99), delivery method (email, PDF+DOCX), delivery time (~5 minutes), and exact deliverables (6 documents). Minor omission: no fallback behavior if default email env var is unset, but overall transparent for a paid service tool.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and price. While it lists all 6 deliverables, each item adds necessary context. Could be slightly shorter, but no wasted sentences. Structure effectively communicates scope.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (detailed list of 6 documents), delivery constraints (email, ~5 min), cost, and that it operates solely on the user-provided description. This is highly complete for a paid report generation 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the description parameter expects 'full project description: what it does, novel features, etc.' and notes email defaults to env var. This adds moderate meaning beyond the schema's brief 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as the 'FITTIN Full IP Portfolio Package' with a specific price ($99). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (fittin_invention, fittin_patentability, fittin_protect) by positioning it as the comprehensive paid package, covering all aspects of IP strategy.

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 'when to use' scenarios: explicit request for full paid report, complete IP strategy, attorney-ready docs, funding due diligence, or full 6-document package. It also labels it as a 'SPECIALIZED EXTERNAL PAID SERVICE,' setting clear boundaries from free or simpler alternatives.

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