recommend_archive_purchase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions ranking strategies and budget but does not state whether this is a read-only analysis, what the return structure looks like, or how the budget filter is applied. The name implies 'recommend' (non-executing), but the description should explicitly clarify side effects (or lack thereof).

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: the first defines the core action, the second gives usage context. Every word contributes, no redundancy or fluff.

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?

This tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the workflow position and core purpose, but lacks details about the return format (e.g., ranked list of scene IDs with scores), tie-breaking behavior, or handling of invalid candidates. Given moderate complexity, it is minimally adequate but with notable 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%, so the baseline is 3 per guidelines. The description reinforces the strategy enum ('cost, quality, or balanced') and the budget concept, but does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. It adds modest value by framing the parameters in a business 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 states a clear verb ('Rank') and specific resource ('candidate archive scenes'), and further clarifies the ranking criteria (cost, quality, balanced) and the goal ('pick the best scene under an optional budget'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_archive or execute_archive_order.

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 explicitly says 'Use this after search/pricing', giving a concrete workflow context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the instruction clearly positions this tool as a downstream decision step, which is sufficient guidance.

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