strale_execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully documents return format ('structured JSON output with SQS quality score, latency, and data provenance'), pricing model (free vs paid capabilities), and data provenance. Lacks explicit error handling or destructiveness guidance, but covers the primary behavioral traits given the generic executor nature.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero waste: (1) purpose + examples, (2) output format, (3) auth/pricing + sibling dependency. Front-loaded with core action, examples provide concrete anchors, and workflow instruction is clear. No redundancy with schema fields.

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?

Compensates well for missing output schema by detailing return structure (SQS score, latency, provenance). For a complex meta-tool executing 250+ capabilities, it adequately covers the dependency chain (strale_search → strale_execute), pricing, and return format. Could enhance with error handling or rate limit notes, but functionally 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% (baseline 3). The description adds value by providing concrete slug examples ('swedish-company-data', 'vat-validate') and explaining that inputs must match 'capability's required fields' discoverable via strale_search. It also contextualizes max_price_cents by listing free capabilities.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Run a Strale capability by slug') and provides concrete examples (IBAN validation, company lookup, sanctions screening) that clearly distinguish it from siblings. It specifically differentiates from strale_search by stating this tool executes while search discovers.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite workflow: 'Use strale_search first to find the right slug and required inputs.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tool. Also clarifies authentication requirements (free capabilities work without API key) and implies when max_price_cents matters.

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