ArcadeOps Public Discovery

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already present, the annotations carry the safety profile. The description adds useful context: it returns only public resources, includes the OAuth guide and protected MCP address, and explicitly states no private data is read.

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 with no filler. The primary result is front-loaded, and the important safety guarantee about private data is stated briefly.

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 parameterless discovery tool with strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is returned, that the data is public, and that no private data is accessed. It does not describe the exact output shape, but with no output schema and minimal complexity this is a modest gap.

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 provides full coverage trivially. The description does not need to document parameters, and it appropriately implies no input is required.

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 names a specific verb ('Retourne') and concrete resource categories: public ArcadeOps resources, the OAuth guide, and the protected business MCP address. It is clearly distinct from the sibling document retrieval/search tools, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 usage: use this tool to obtain public ArcadeOps resources, the OAuth guide, or the protected MCP address. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to arcadeops_get_document or arcadeops_search_docs.

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 annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints by specifying that the document is public, and that the result is a canonical link plus MIME type, which tells the agent what kind of operation and response to expect.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information from the schema. It immediately communicates what the tool returns and for what kind of input.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup tool with annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the input and the output. It does not mention error behavior or explicitly point to sibling tools, but this is a low-complexity tool, so 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 coverage is 100%: the single 'document' parameter is fully described as a stable identifier of a public document, and its enum lists valid values. The description does not add much beyond that, but the schema already does the necessary work, so the 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 ('Retourne' / returns) and a specific resource (a public ArcadeOps document), and it names the exact outputs: canonical link and MIME type. The word 'identifié' signals this is a get-by-identifier operation, which distinguishes it from the sibling discover and search tools.

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 the tool is for a specific, already-known document ('un document public ArcadeOps identifié'), which is the right mental model for choosing this tool over arcadeops_discover or arcadeops_search_docs. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds two behavioral details: the search covers only public content and no secondary network call is made. This gives useful context about side effects and scope 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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary function is stated first, followed by relevant constraints, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter search tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is searched, the public scope, and the lack of network side effects. It does not describe the return format, but the tool name and absence of an output schema make the return semantics reasonably inferable.

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 already documents the single 'query' parameter fully with examples. The description adds semantic meaning by stating that the query searches both name and description fields, which is not explicit in 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 a specific action: searching by name and description in the public ArcadeOps catalog. It distinguishes the resource and scope, but does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like arcadeops_discover or arcadeops_get_document.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (for searching public documentation) and adds a boundary (no private content), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over its siblings 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.