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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that verification happens offline against a built-in public key, that the key is persisted to the config file, and that invalid keys are refused and left unsaved. This is substantial transparency for an activation tool, though it could mention overwriting an existing key or the exact return behavior.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main action, source, verification method, and persistence. The second sentence efficiently covers error handling and points to the related read-back tool. Every clause adds value.

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 a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers activation behavior, verification mechanism, persistence, error outcomes, and how to read the result later. The only minor gap is an explicit statement of what the function returns upon success or failure, but the phrase 'refused, unsaved' implies a feedback mechanism. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 already documents the 'key' parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by giving the concrete key format ('MCPL1.xxx.yyy'), confirming the key comes from the checkout page, and explaining that malformed or expired keys will be rejected. This goes beyond the schema's one-line description.

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 specific action ('Activate a Pro key'), the exact key format ('MCPL1.xxx.yyy'), the source ('from checkout'), and the core mechanism ('verified offline against a built-in public key'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling license_status by noting that license_status reads the activation back, so there is no ambiguity about which tool does what.

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 gives clear context: use this when you have a Pro key from checkout that needs to be activated. It also points to license_status as the read-back tool, which implies when to use a related sibling. It does not explicitly spell out 'do not use for checking status' or list other alternatives, but the context is strong enough to avoid misuse.

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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the call is local ('no network') and argument-free, and it mentions a specific explanatory behavior. The word 'Report' implies read-only, though it does not explicitly state non-destructive or permission requirements; this is adequate for a status command.

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 with no filler. The first sentence lists the output fields; the second adds constraints and the sibling pointer. Every clause contributes meaningful information.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description lists the expected output fields, behavioral constraints, and the relevant alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters and the description reinforces this with 'No arguments'. It adds value by listing the reported fields, helping an agent understand what the empty input will yield. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is high, and the description meets it.

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 specific verb ('Report'), a clear resource ('this server's licence state'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also names the sibling 'license_activate' as the tool that does something different, so an agent can distinguish them immediately.

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 gives explicit usage constraints: no arguments, no network, and explains a free-tier refusal. It also directs the agent to license_activate when the task is to install a key, serving as an explicit pointer to the relevant alternative.

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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a critical behavior: it refuses to export if any non-personal trip in the window is unpriced, and it specifies ordering and the bare-number format of the amount column. This is valuable context beyond what the schema provides, though it does not mention other potential failure modes.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently lists the output columns and key behaviors in a few sentences. The trailing 'Pro.' is slightly ambiguous but does not detract significantly from the overall clarity.

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 simple export tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the output format, ordering, and a critical failure condition. It does not cover authentication or other edge cases, but these are not typically expected in tool descriptions. The description provides enough information for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. It does not need to compensate since the schema already explains the date range, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 exports the mileage log as CSV, specifies the exact row structure (one row per trip, oldest first) and lists all columns. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like mileage_summary or trip_list, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 title and description imply this is for exporting a CSV log for an accountant, which indicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key edge-case behavior (trips without a rate are listed with reason, not dropped) and includes the cryptic 'Never metered' note, which likely indicates no rate-limit impact. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but that is implied for a summary tool. No contradictions with annotations (none present).

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 with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, lists the output components, includes a crucial edge-case behavior, and states defaults. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (trips, distance kept per unit, rate per trip, deductible amount per currency). It also covers the edge case of trips without rates, states defaults, and is concise enough for an agent to call it correctly. No critical missing information is apparent.

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%, meaning all parameters (to_date, category, from_date) are already documented in the schema with their defaults and allowed values. The description adds minimal new semantic value—it reiterates the default calendar year (already in schema) and mentions 'per category' which is also in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 function: summarizing deductible mileage for a date range, broken down by category, with specific metrics (trips, distance, rate, deductible amount). It also includes behavioral details like 'Trips with no applicable rate are listed with the reason, not silently dropped' and 'Never metered,' which distinguish it from siblings like trip_list or mileage_export. The verb 'summarize' is implicit but the scope and output are specific.

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 clear context about defaults (current calendar year) and what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to use this versus alternatives like trip_list or mileage_export. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided, with no 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations.

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 carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Reads only,' discloses grouping and ordering behavior, and clarifies that it returns the full rate series. This is solid transparency for a simple list operation, though it does not describe output format details.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds grouping and ordering details without any filler. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description provides the essential behavioral context: what is listed, how it is organized, and that it is safe to call. It could mention return format or potential size, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description confirms the scope ('every mileage rate on file'), leaving no ambiguity about what the call returns. The baseline for a parameterless tool is high, and the description fully satisfies it.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('every mileage rate on file') and adds distinguishing details: grouping by jurisdiction and category, and inclusion of effective-from dates. This makes it easy to tell apart from siblings like rate_set and mileage_summary.

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 phrase 'the series each trip is priced from' gives useful context for when to use this tool: when you need the rate series used for trip pricing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter read tool.

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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates this is a mutating operation (setting a rate), explains the series semantics and that trips earn the rate in force on the day driven, and notes that no rates ship with the server (data must be user-provided). It also discloses free-tier limits. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a solid mental model, though it does not detail error conditions or overwrite behavior.

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 compact but not skeletal. It front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds necessary context (series, earning logic, data verification, free tier). Every sentence contributes value and the structure flows logically. It is slightly longer than minimal but earns its length with material context.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what is set, how the series works, how rates apply to trips, the effective date flexibility, and free-tier constraints. It does not mention response format or error handling, but those are often inferred from the tool's purpose. The description is strong enough for an agent to call it correctly in most contexts.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'each trip earns the rate in force on the day it was driven' clarifies effective_from, and 'the figures are yours to verify' hints at data ownership), but it does not add per-parameter syntax beyond what the schema already states. It supplements the schema meaningfully without being essential, so 3 is correct.

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 precise action ('Set what one mile or km is worth') and specifies the exact scope: one category, one jurisdiction, from a date forward. It clearly distinguishes the write operation from siblings like rate_list by framing it as an act of setting, and adds context about the rate series and earning logic. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool is used (to define or update a rate) and provides useful context about the rate series and effective dates, but it does not explicitly direct the agent away from alternatives or name sibling tools. For example, it never says 'to view rates, use rate_list'. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the return of a trip ID and the free-tier limit, but it does not explicitly state that this is a mutating operation, any required authentication, or potential side effects. The description is not misleading, but it under-discloses for a write operation without annotation support.

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, front-loaded with the core action and key fields, then the return ID, then the free-tier constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, making it concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (9 params, 7 required) and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return value, and a key constraint (free tier). The schema covers parameter details, and the description does not need to explain those. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could mention the rejection of future dates (already in schema) or error behavior, but those are minor 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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description reiterates the field names but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the note or jurisdiction fields, but those are covered in the schema). With high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Log one drive in the mileage log') and enumerates the key fields (date, from, to, distance, purpose, category). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by its verb and resource focus—logging versus listing, removing, or exporting trips. The return of a TR-YYYY-NNNN id is also mentioned, adding specificity.

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 gives clear context: it's for adding a trip to the mileage log, and it mentions the free-tier monthly limit, which is a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like trip_remove or trip_list, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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 burden. It explicitly says 'Reads only,' which is a strong safety disclosure. It also discloses ordering ('oldest first'), the exact fields returned, and the pricing behavior (earnings under the rate in force on its day, or the plain reason it is unpriced). This goes well beyond a generic 'list trips' and gives the agent a clear model of what the tool does and what it returns.

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 with zero waste. The core action and ordering are front-loaded, the return fields are listed compactly, and the filter capability is stated in a short final sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states ordering, fields, pricing behavior, and filters. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe pagination or result limits, but for a mileage log list this is a small omission. The read-only annotation absence is compensated by the explicit 'Reads only' statement.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with formats and meanings. The description adds the filter dimensions ('Filter by date range and category') but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 specific verb ('List trips'), a clear resource ('the mileage log'), and a precise scope: oldest first, with the fields returned and the pricing behavior. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is read-only and by naming the filter dimensions (date range and category), so an agent can tell it apart from mileage_summary, mileage_export, and trip_add without opening schemas.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a chronological list of trips with per-trip earnings and filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only note and the filter semantics provide enough context to select it over trip_add, trip_remove, rate_set, and mileage_summary. A small gap is that it doesn't explicitly say 'use mileage_summary for totals' or 'use mileage_export for file output,' but the context is clear.

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 carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the id is not reissued and a gap in the TR series is the record of removal. This is valuable beyond the schema. It doesn't mention irreversibility explicitly, but the gap statement strongly implies permanence.

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, zero waste. The core action and identifier format are front-loaded, and the behavioral note about id gaps is a meaningful addition that earns its place.

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 single-parameter removal tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what, when, and a key behavioral consequence. It could mention that removal is permanent, but the gap statement already implies it.

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 schema already documents the id parameter with an example. The description reinforces the exact format but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('one trip from the mileage log'), and a precise identifier format ('exact TR-YYYY-NNNN id'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like trip_add and trip_list by focusing on removal by exact id.

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 says this is for 'entries made by mistake', which gives a clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over trip_add or trip_list.

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