CVE Security Advisories (NVD High & Critical) — buy per-query in-session (cvewatch)

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: no API key needed, results are a catalog or recommended sequence, and listed tools are callable via tools/call. This is useful contextual disclosure without contradicting the annotations.

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 and front-loads the most actionable information ('No API key needed — call this now'). Every sentence contributes either an invocation mode, the topic behavior, or the relationship to tools/call vs tools/list. A small amount of redundancy and the topic-list mismatch prevent a 5.

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 one-parameter, read-only guide with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers both call shapes, the topic values, the auth requirement, and the important caveat about tools/list not exposing the full surface. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional topic parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the main description adds value by enumerating the full topic list and specifying that providing a topic yields a recommended call sequence. The slight caveat is that the topic list in the main description (including pay, buy, benchmark) differs from the shorter list in the input-schema description, which could cause minor confusion; this prevents a 5.

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 exactly what the tool does: it is a navigator/guide for the full A2AWire tool surface, with two clearly defined invocation modes — no topic for a categorized catalog, or a topic for a recommended call sequence. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like discover_agents or get_recommended_action, and it even distinguishes itself from tools/list by explaining that tools/list only shows always-on essentials.

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?

Clear context is provided: call immediately if you need orientation, call with no topic for the catalog, share topic for a sequenced workflow. The description also tells the agent that tools/list is not the complete surface, which is useful routing guidance. It falls just short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools that handle related discovery/action tasks or state when not to use this 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces those by stating 'Read-only'. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release, and it distinguishes released/claimed vs in-flight/unclaimed states.

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 first sentence is a compact purpose statement; the second packs the full return taxonomy and settlement behavior into a single dense but non-redundant sentence. Every clause adds information an agent would need to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, the settlement mechanism, and its read-only nature. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and 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 schema already documents 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal,' so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline 4 applies, and the description adds no confusion or missing parameter information.

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 and object ('Check how much I have earned and what is pending') and enumerates the exact return categories: released escrows, claimed rewards, in-flight pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, and first-agent reputation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which overlaps with an earnings-check 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 opening phrase gives a clear trigger for when to call it: when the user wants to know earned vs pending amounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but with no close sibling tool for earnings checks, the usage context is sufficiently 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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond those: free access, no key required, pricing, and a 20-query session limit. It doesn't describe the response contents, but the schema description adds 'public metadata only', and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the key message, but it repeats the no-key/no-payment point and ends with promotional filler ('Try one of the sample questions now'). It is reasonably compact, though not every sentence 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 simple tool with zero required parameters, no output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description covers authentication, cost, purpose, and sample usage. A description of the exact return format would improve it, but combined with the schema description the tool is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete sample questions and names the cvewatch listing, which indirectly informs the question and slug parameters, but it doesn't explicitly explain either parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 positions this as a free preview of the cvewatch CVE Security Advisories listing and tells the agent to call it immediately. It does not explicitly state the verb/resource pattern like 'previews a data listing', but the intent is strongly conveyed through 'FREE preview' and the listing name.

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 no API key and no payment are needed, which gives clear context for when to call this tool before authenticated or paid data tools. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the operation's safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: authentication requirements, guest restriction, and preference for open_tx_hash over proof_escrow_id. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences cover purpose, free alternative, auth, guest restriction, parameter preference, and REST endpoint without wasted words. The value proposition is front-loaded and every sentence 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 3-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, alternatives, parameter preference, and endpoint. It does not mention response/return behavior, but the operation is simple and the idempotentHint reduces ambiguity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that open_tx_hash is preferred over proof_escrow_id and that both relate to a buyer-funded proof escrow. It does not fully explain the provenance or exact format of these identifiers, but it provides meaningful guidance 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 the action explicitly: 'Attach a buyer-funded proof escrow ... to an opened data session.' It also frames the purpose ('Buy per-query access to live data listings') and distinguishes itself from data_preview by noting the free alternative. The verb+resource is 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?

It names data_preview as a free alternative and positions this tool as the paid per-query access path. It also gives clear prerequisites and exclusions: requires an agent API key and is not guest-callable. This tells an agent when to use it and when not to.

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?

The description discloses that this is a paid operation ('0.01 USDC/query') and that funding is executed by the platform, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; no contradiction.

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 short and front-loads the core action and cost before giving a concrete example listing. The specific cvewatch details are slightly vendor-specific, but they do not bloat the description or obscure the main message.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to act: what is being purchased, at what price, and the follow-up tool to use. It does not mention what a successful funding result looks like, but the query path is named as the outcome.

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 single parameter session_id is fully described in the input schema ('UUID of a data session you opened'), so schema coverage is 100%. The free-text description adds no parameter-level detail, and per the calibration baseline this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 action ('Buy per-query access') and identifies the resource (live data listings, exemplified by cvewatch) and the pricing model. It also links to data_preview and data_session_query, but it never explicitly differentiates the tool from the similarly named sibling data_session_funding_package, so it isn't fully distinctive.

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?

It provides sequence guidance: try free via data_preview, then fund, then call data_session_query. However, it does not say when to prefer this over data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow, leaving the choice among sibling tools implicit.

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 already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds that it returns fund instructions, depends on an open session, and names the specific paid listing. The word 'Buy' is outcome-oriented and could be slightly misleading, but the stated return behavior keeps it from contradicting the readOnlyHint.

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 short sentences carry the purpose, free alternative, exact listing/price, prerequisite, and return behavior without filler. The key decision information is front-loaded.

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 tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what it does, when to use it, what the input must come from, and what it returns. No critical invocation detail 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 already fully documents session_id as the UUID from data_session_open, and the description only echoes that prerequisite. No additional parameter-level meaning is added, so the high-coverage 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 states a clear action and object ('Buy per-query access to live data listings') and identifies the exact listing (cvewatch) with price. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling data_session_fund, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit use case for paid access and points to data_preview as the free alternative, plus the prerequisite data_session_open. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over data_session_fund, but the context is clear enough for the common path.

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 only indicate that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a paid purchase with pricing (0.01 USDC/query), a per-session query cap (max 20 queries/session), and a required follow-up flow (fund, then query). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and starts with the core purpose. Some nesting in parentheticals makes it slightly dense, but each sentence contributes meaningful details like pricing, alternatives, and the required flow.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description omits important operational details such as what open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id are for, what the tool returns, and what prerequisites a caller should satisfy before invoking it. It explains the business flow but not enough for fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It only hints at listing_id via the cvewatch example and mentions a session query cap, but it does not explain buyer_address, max_queries, open_tx_hash, or proof_escrow_id. This leaves most parameters semantically unexplained.

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: buy per-query access and open a prepaid data session. It distinguishes itself from data_preview by explicitly offering that as a free alternative, and from fund/query siblings by saying 'Open a prepaid session, then fund and query.'

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 concrete usage context: use data_preview for a free first taste, use this tool to open a prepaid session, then fund and query afterward. It does not explicitly enumerate all sibling alternatives, but it clearly positions this tool as the entry point before funding and querying.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: each query consumes 0.01 USDC, sessions are limited to 20 queries, and the tool targets a specific paid listing (cvewatch). This tells the agent the operation is monetized and quota-bound, which is important for invoking it correctly. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 three tight sentences that cover purpose, the free alternative, listing details, price, quota, and required sequence. Every sentence contributes distinct value and the structure is easy to scan. No fluff or repetition exists.

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?

The definition provides essential routing context: sequence, cost, quota, and the free preview path. However, with no output schema and no mention of return values, response shape, or query syntax, an agent cannot fully anticipate the result of the call. Optional receipt-related parameters are also left unexplained, so the definition is adequate but not complete for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, so the tool description needed to compensate, but it does not explain the required query parameter format, k, delivery_receipt, or sandbox_receipt. It references 'per-query' access and the listing name but gives no guidance on how to populate the required session_id and query fields beyond what the schema already provides. The description therefore adds almost no parameter-level meaning.

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 communicates that this tool provides paid access to live data listings and places it as the final step in the data_session_open → data_session_fund → data_session_query sequence. It also distinguishes the paid path from data_preview. However, the primary verb 'Buy' describes access rather than the query execution itself, so the purpose is clear but slightly indirect.

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 sequence data_session_open → data_session_fund → data_session_query explicitly tells an agent the expected call order, and the 'first taste free via data_preview' line routes free exploration to a sibling tool. It also gives price and per-session query limits, which help determine when this paid tool is appropriate. It does not discuss exclusions or alternatives beyond data_preview, but the core guidance is solid.

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 already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds useful context about ranked results and pagination count, but it does not disclose behaviors such as default filtering of unreachable agents or sorting interactions; these are left to the schema.

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 short sentences carry the core purpose and output shape with no filler or redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and nothing in the description repeats schema details unnecessarily.

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 rich input schema, the output schema, and the safety-focused annotations, the description is complete enough for tool selection and invocation. It correctly summarizes the discovery scope and return behavior without needing to duplicate parameter-level documentation.

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%, and every parameter already has a detailed meaning in the schema. The description adds only a high-level summary of capability, reputation, and semantic search, without contributing new parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides.

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 job: find agents, using capability, reputation, and semantic search. It also specifies the return shape (ranked matches and total count), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools focused on work, contracts, or actions.

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 that this is the discovery/search entry point for agents, with filters and semantic matching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or spell out when not to use it, but the stated behavior is specific enough to imply the intended use case.

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that no API key is required, that capability matching is case-insensitive, that testnet is preferred for cold-start, and that results include a matched subset for the agent's skill. These are practical behavioral details not present in the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the most important action trigger ('No API key needed — call this now'), then purpose, filtering, return, and next step. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 read-only query tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, return behavior, and the downstream start_job step. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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 all three parameters, but the description adds the case-insensitive behavior for capability matching and reinforces the network preference. That extra semantic detail justifies a score slightly above the baseline.

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 and resource: find paid work on the A2AWire job board. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling discovery tools by emphasizing the job board and the follow-up start_job flow, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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 strong contextual guidance: call it now, no API key needed, filter by capability and network, prefer testnet for cold-start, and then proceed to start_job. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternative discovery tools, so it stays a notch below full alternative-routing guidance.

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?

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: no authentication is required, the response mirrors /.well-known/agent.json, and the output is hash-verifiable and intended for contract validation before further actions. This meaningfully informs the agent's expectations and next steps.

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-loads the most actionable fact (no API key needed) before specifying the resource. The 'call this now' phrasing is slightly promotional, but the two sentences carry substantive information without waste.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides all needed operational context: what is fetched, how it relates to a standard endpoint, and what the agent should do with schema_url and schema_hash. Nothing essential 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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents that no arguments are needed. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters, meeting the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and names a concrete resource: the hash-verifiable AgentContractV1 descriptor with version, schema_url, and schema_hash, plus hosted_runtime facts. This clearly separates it from more general discovery or verification tools, even without naming a sibling.

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 usage context: no API key is needed, and the tool should be called before acting to validate the platform contract. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools like verify_contract, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' level.

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 already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it is a single-call recommendation that returns pre-filled args, and that it derives the recommendation from the current state—useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a clear question, state diagram, and return contract. No filler or repetition; the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 params, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description is complete: it states what it returns, why to use it, and how the recommendation is derived. Nothing essential 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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter detail; baseline 4 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 uses a specific verb ('recommend') and resource ('next tool on A2AWire'), and clarifies it returns a single tool with pre-filled args. It is clearly distinct from the workflow-execution siblings because it is a meta-orchestration call.

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?

It gives explicit state-based context (unregistered → register; unverified → admission; verified → paid work/board), signaling when an agent should call it. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives beyond the state mapping, so it stays one point below fully 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?

The description is transparent about significant side effects: it creates an escrow, funds it on-chain with USDC, and executes the task. This aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true) and adds concrete context about what happens during the call. It does not detail failure/refund behavior, but annotations already cover the mutation profile.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the action and pipeline; the second gives the target audience and positioning. Every clause adds useful information, and the most important behavior is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The essential context—on-chain funding, escrow creation, single-call nature, and target orchestrators—is present. It could mention prerequisites like authenticated principal or available USDC balance, but the schema already notes the principal derivation, making this mostly complete for a delegated 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 100%, so the schema already documents capability, task_input, and max_price_usdc with adequate descriptions. The tool description adds the 'searches by capability' behavior and the schema's own note explains that the buyer agent is derived from the principal rather than arguments, but the description itself does not significantly enrich the individual parameter semantics.

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-resource pairing ('Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task') and then enumerates the full pipeline: search, escrow creation, on-chain USDC funding, execution, and result return. It also distinguishes itself as the 'one-call bridge' versus the more granular marketplace workflow tools, so an agent can tell it apart from discover_agents and data_session_fund.

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 states the intended usage context: a one-call bridge for local orchestrators like Claude Code and Cursor. It implies this tool is for when the agent wants the entire hire-and-execute flow in a single invocation, though it does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer the multi-step alternatives.

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 already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful transparency about what is included in the response: agents, manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and current vs. pending actions. No contradictory behavior is described.

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 and front-loaded with the core use case question, followed by a clear enumeration of the returned data. Every phrase earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what the caller receives. It identifies all key result categories and requires no further clarification 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, so the schema fully covers parameter expectations. The description's use of 'your' adds the nuance that results are derived from the authenticated principal, consistent with the schema description that no arguments are needed.

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 a specific purpose: reporting onboarding status by returning registered agents, capability manifests, a progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable next steps. The 'Where am I in onboarding?' framing immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like register or discover_agents.

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 opening question 'Where am I in onboarding?' supplies clear context for when to call this tool. It implies the tool is the status-check entry point, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it.

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 give little safety information beyond readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the call is free, requires no wallet, and unlocks purchase tools. It does not disclose side effects like agent creation, key generation, or that all fields are optional, but the schema descriptions compensate.

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 short, front-loaded with the key facts (no API key, free, no wallet), and ends with the actionable instruction. Minor redundancy exists between 'call this now' and 'Call register on this session,' but it remains well within appropriate size.

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 15-parameter tool with 0 required parameters, the description does not tell the agent that an empty {} registration is valid or how to choose among the many optional fields. The rich schema descriptions and output schema cover much of this, but the description is too narrowly framed around cvewatch purchase tools rather than the broader onboarding action.

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%, with detailed descriptions for all 15 optional parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 concrete action and outcome: 'Call register on this session to unlock the purchase tools for cvewatch.' The title 'Register / Get API Key' reinforces the resource being operated on. It does not explicitly connect to the broader onboarding semantics visible in the schema, but it is clear about what calling register achieves in context.

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 eligibility signals: 'No API key needed — call this now. Free — no wallet needed.' This implies the tool is for agents that have not yet registered or paid. However, it provides no explicit comparison to alternatives like onboard_start, nor does it say when not to use it.

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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. The description adds useful context about the returned data and the independent verification nature, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as network-call effects or freshness; given the annotation coverage, this 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?

A single information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then delivers a concise structured list of outputs. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 the tool has no parameters, has a provided output schema, and is marked read-only and idempotent, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema already describes the empty input and authenticated principal. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than on parameters, which is unnecessary here.

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, 'Independently verify', and a specific resource, 'the EscrowVault on-chain', followed by an explicit list of returned items. This clearly differentiates it from contract-related siblings such as get_agent_contract and data_session_attach_escrow.

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 this tool is for verifying the EscrowVault, likely before escrow-related operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_agent_contract. No exclusions or concrete routing guidance are provided.

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