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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only mentions returning solutions side by side, but does not state whether this tool is read-only, any side effects, or constraints like required permissions. It lacks transparency beyond the basic function.

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 concise sentence that uses active voice and front-loads the key information (return 2 to 4 solutions). No unnecessary words.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It tells what the tool does and the range of solutions, but does not describe the output format, any sorting or ordering, or related constraints like required fields for comparison. It is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The schema describes the only parameter 'ids' with min/max items, but the description adds context that the output is a side-by-side comparison on the same fields. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by explaining the purpose, but does not elaborate on the 'ids' parameter meaning or format.

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 returns 2 to 4 solutions side by side on the same fields, which provides a specific verb ('return') and resource ('solutions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_solutions' or 'get_solution' by emphasizing comparison.

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 implies that this tool is for comparing multiple solutions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_solution' or 'search_solutions'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms a read operation ('Return the full record') without indicating idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior. It does not state whether the returned record is guaranteed fresh or cached, nor whether authentication is needed. This is adequate but minimal.

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 (14 words) that efficiently captures purpose, resource, and method. Every word is relevant. No wasted phrasing. Front-loaded with the action 'Return the full record' – ideal for scanning.

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 (1 required param, no nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient functional purpose. However, it lacks mention of what happens if the id is invalid (e.g., 404), or whether the response includes nested objects like related items. The absence of an output schema means the description should hint at the 'full record' structure, but it does not enumerate fields. It is just adequate for a simple retrieval 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. The description mentions 'by id,' which maps to the required 'id' parameter, adding basic context. However, it does not clarify that id is a string (schema indicates type), nor does it provide format guidance (e.g., UUID vs plain string). For a single required param, this is borderline acceptable but lacks helpful detail beyond the schema.

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 'Return the full record for a single solution by id,' specifying the verb (return) and resource (full record for solution) and the identifying method (by id). It distinguishes from list_categories and search_solutions (which retrieve multiple) and compare_solutions (comparison), but could be more explicit that this is the singular retrieval endpoint.

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 implies use when you need a complete record of a known solution, contrasting with search_solutions (which returns summaries/partial data) and list_categories (which returns categories, not solutions). However, no explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given, though the sibling context clarifies alternatives. The lack of mention about requiring the ID beforehand is a minor gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns every category with its record count, which is a clear behavioral trait. It does not mention performance, data freshness, or side effects, but for a simple read-only list tool, the description is adequate.

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 is front-loaded with the key action ('Return every category') and includes the purpose. Every word earns its place with no wasted content.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively complete for a simple list tool. However, it could be improved by mentioning the response format (e.g., whether categories are sorted) or any limits. The explanation of purpose is helpful, but the lack of output schema details leaves some ambiguity.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but with zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description already provides value beyond the schema.

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 'Return every category' with a specific verb and resource, and explains the purpose ('so filters can be built against real values rather than guesses'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which deal with solutions, not categories.

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 implies when to use this tool: when building filters based on real category values. It provides context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. However, siblings are clearly different (solutions), so the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return shape (short projection) and directs to get_solution for full records. However, it omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (though limit param exists), result ordering, or what happens with empty results. This is a moderate disclosure but has gaps.

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?

Two sentences front-load the action and result, then provide a clear pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, with no fluff or repetition. Ideal conciseness for a search tool.

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?

For a tool with 7 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the main input mechanism (free text and filters), the output projection, and the follow-up sibling call. However, it does not explain the overall filtering logic (AND across parameters) or pagination, which are implicit from the limit parameter. Still, it is reasonably complete for standard usage.

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 high (86%), so the schema already provides strong param documentation. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how multiple filters combine or the meaning of limit's default). Given the high baseline, the description's value is neutral; it doesn't degrade but doesn't enhance.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'curated database of generative AI tools', and specifies the method 'by free text and filters'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'returns a short projection (id, name, type, url); call get_solution...' and implicitly from list_categories (for valid values of type) and compare_solutions (not mentioned but different purpose).

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 tells the agent when to use get_solution ('for the full record') after a search, which provides a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid search_solutions or when to use list_categories or compare_solutions, leaving some ambiguity for related sibling tools.

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