DaedalMap Population Estimates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's claim of returning data is consistent. It adds context by specifying the returned items are 'live agent-ready' and from 'DaedalMap', but does not describe pagination, limits, or output structure beyond a list.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('Free discovery') and immediately specifying the return value. Every word contributes.

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 is simple (no parameters, no output schema, one sibling tool type), the description adequately covers the purpose. However, it could be improved by hinting at the relationship with get_pack (e.g., 'Use this to browse available packs, then get_pack to retrieve a specific pack').

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 0 parameters, so by baseline the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description mentions 'Free discovery' which aligns with no inputs, but no additional value is needed 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 the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'list of live agent-ready data packs available on DaedalMap', distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_pack' (which likely retrieves a single pack) and 'query_dataset' (which queries dataset content).

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 'Free discovery' implies a browse/search use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (get_pack, query_dataset). No 'when not to use' is provided.

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=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: 'Free discovery' signals no cost/side effects, and the sequencing instruction ('before querying a new pack') is a valuable ordering constraint. No contradictions 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The opening 'Free discovery' immediately signals the tool's nature, and the rest packs specific value (metadata, coverage, freshness, guidance, examples) into a structured list. 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?

With one simple parameter, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description does enough: it lists the categories of returned information and tells when to call. The only minor gap is precise output format details, but the description covers the essential context for invoking the 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter pack_id, which already states it is a 'Pack identifier from get_catalog.' The description reinforces this by referring to 'one pack' and 'new pack,' but adds no semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('Returns') and resource ('one pack'), and enumerates the contents: metadata, coverage, freshness, canonical tool guidance, and first-query examples. It clearly differentiates from siblings by focusing on a single pack's details, unlike get_catalog which likely lists packs.

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 guidance: 'Call this before querying a new pack so you can see time shape, coverage limits, and the paste-ready first query.' This is clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it misses the top tier.

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=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the tool's output structure (what it returns) and its prerequisite (needs a tool name from tools/list). It doesn't 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the first sentence summarizing the tool's function and the second providing usage guidance. Every sentence carries information; no filler or 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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description enumerates the key return categories comprehensively, enabling the agent to know what to expect. It also covers prerequisites and usage context, making it complete for a simple one-parameter 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?

The input schema has full coverage: tool_name is described as 'Exact tool name from tools/list.' The description reinforces this by mentioning tools/list, but provides no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states the tool provides guidance for another tool on the MCP facade, enumerating the specific categories of information it returns (usage, refusals, examples, limits, outputs, provenance, next calls, interaction contract). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_catalog, get_pack, and query_dataset, which serve different purposes.

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 guidance: use tools/list to find tool names, then call this before an unfamiliar tool. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (though the guidance implies it's for unfamiliar tools only).

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 readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already known. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing that some packs are paid, pricing in x402 Base USDC, and that it follows an existing API contract. It does not mention rate limits or other runtime behaviors, but the added cost and pack-access details are valuable.

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 purpose, followed by a concise enumeration of free and paid packs. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description gives good pack context but does not explain response format, default query behavior, or whether exactly one of source_id/pack_id is required. Referencing an external API contract helps but does not fully compensate for these 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented well. The description adds value by enumerating actual free and paid pack identifiers and indicating direct access by source_id or pack_id, which helps an agent identify concrete valid inputs beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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 that this tool performs a structured query for direct source_id or pack_id access, referencing the same contract as POST /api/v1/query/dataset. It is specific about the resource and operation, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like get_catalog or get_pack.

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 useful context about available free and paid packs, which implies when this tool can be used, and the schema notes that pack_id comes from get_catalog. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or 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.