NovaRail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the auth requirement and the filtering/ranking behavior, which is valuable, but it remains silent on response shape, pagination, rate limits, or side-effect profile beyond the verb 'Find'.

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 first states the operation, filters, and ordering; the second states the required auth. Everything 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?

The description supports a basic call but is incomplete for reliable tool selection: no output schema is present, the return-value shape is not described, and the overlap with search_agents is left unresolved. The absence of annotations further reduces the safety net.

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 only 25% (limit is documented). The description adds functional meaning to capability, min_reputation, and max_price by placing them as filters, but it does not specify scales, units, or string formats, so it only partially compensates for the low 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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('Find agents') and gives filtering and ranking semantics. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling search_agents, which may serve a similar role, so it stops 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus search_agents or other siblings, and there are no explicit exclusions. The only extra sentence covers authentication, not usage context, so an agent must guess which search tool fits.

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 present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the required auth mechanism (Bearer API key or OAuth token) and precisely describes what the call returns, including Ed25519-signed credentials and the NovaRail-observed vs self-attested distinction. It does not explicitly confirm read-only semantics or error behavior, but 'Get' and the trust-inspection framing make the read nature clear enough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose, then packs in the specific verification-block contents and auth requirement without filler. Every clause earns its place and the structure is highly scannable.

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 getter with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what data is returned, why it matters, and how to authenticate. It could add explicit read-only confirmation or mention error conditions, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity of the operation.

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 one parameter, agent_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description never explicitly defines agent_id. However, the phrase 'a marketplace agent's...' and the parameter's self-descriptive name make the intended value unambiguous. This is minimal but acceptable compensation for the missing 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a marketplace agent's public profile AND its verification block' with a clear evaluation purpose ('see how trustworthy it is before calling it'). The detail about reputation, provenance, and signed credentials distinguishes it from generic discovery/search siblings, even though it doesn't explicitly name one.

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 clear usage context: use this to inspect an agent's trustworthiness before invoking it. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls just short of fully explicit 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions auth requirements and the data returned, but does not discuss potential errors (e.g., execution not found) or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, required parameter, and return values. It also includes auth information efficiently. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (status, output, cost) and mentions auth. It covers the essential aspects for a simple fetch tool, though it could additionally describe the format of status or cost, but this is not critical.

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 provides only the parameter name and type (string) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that execution_id identifies a past execution the user ran, and that the tool returns status, output, and cost. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches a past execution (status, output, cost) by execution_id, using the specific verb 'Fetch'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_agent' or 'discover_agents' which retrieve different resources.

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 the tool is for fetching executions the user ran themselves ('you ran'), providing contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the purpose is straightforward.

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 present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds a clear auth requirement (Bearer API key or OAuth token) and lists what the returned passport contains. It does not discuss errors or side effects, but the term 'Fetch' implies read-only behavior and the auth/contents details are substantive.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences deliver purpose, scope, and auth requirements without filler. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a strong basis for invocation: purpose, intended agent population, auth method, and return-content highlights. It is missing explicit response structure and error behavior, but for a one-parameter fetch this is nearly 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 coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly relates agent_id to the agent whose passport is being fetched. It gives no format, example, or additional constraints. For a single obvious string parameter this is adequate, but it adds little beyond the schema itself.

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 resource: 'Fetch an OFF-platform agent's passport' and enumerates its contents (DID identity, provenance, verification tier, control-verified flag, reputation). The 'OFF-platform' qualifier clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_agent.

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 condition: 'Use for agents registered on NovaRail but hosted elsewhere.' This tells an agent when to select the tool, though it does not name the alternative tool or state a when-not-to-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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses charging and auth, but lacks details on failure handling, retries, or rate limits, which are important for a paid execution tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then cost and auth. Every sentence adds value; no 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?

Covers key aspects: purpose, cost, auth, and optional parameters. Lacks output format hint, but given no output schema and high schema coverage, it is still fairly 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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for parameters like task and agent_id, so 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 'Run/call a NovaRail agent on a task and get its output back,' specifying the action, resource, and result. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_agents and get_agent.

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 mentions charging balance, quality gate, and auth requirements, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list 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?

It discloses authentication requirements and mentions the identity is permanent, but fails to detail other behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or validation. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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 highly concise, consisting of two front-loaded sentences that cover the core action and authentication without unnecessary words.

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

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

Given the 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits parameter guidance and output expectations, leaving the agent underspecified.

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 description does not elaborate on any of the 5 input parameters, which are also undocumented in the schema. Critical fields like agent_public_key and external_endpoint are left 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 tool's action (register an OFF-platform agent) and outcome (mint a permanent NovaRail identity, DID). It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from siblings like get_agent or search_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 description provides context about OFF-platform agents and authentication, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like discover_agents or hire_agent.

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 full burden. It discloses the core behavior (calling endpoint, observing output, issuing credential) and the auth requirement. However, it omits details on failure outcomes or side effects.

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 sentences, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value (process, prerequisite, auth). No unnecessary words.

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

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

Given 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It covers the high-level purpose but lacks details on parameters, return values, and error conditions.

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 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (agent_id, task, deep, context). The agent has no guidance on what values to use, severely hindering correct invocation.

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 performs relay-verification: it calls an agent's PROVEN endpoint, observes output, and issues a credential on pass. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_agents or hire_agent.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires control_verified') and the auth method, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the auth requirement and the return content, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or whether the credentials are always included.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused sentence with an auth note. Every piece of content earns its place, and the primary purpose 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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input and high-level output sufficiently. It lacks edge-case behavior and explicit alternative routing, but it is mostly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 provides no description for the single parameter and has 0% coverage, but the description clarifies that the parameter can be either a DID or an agent_id. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema, though it stops short of giving format examples or constraints.

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 ('Resolve a DID or agent_id') and the intended result ('full identity document + issued credentials'). It is distinct enough from search/discover tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_agent or get_passport.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_agent or get_passport. The auth note is useful but does not help an agent choose between 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states that only public agents are returned, lists the result fields, and specifies the required Bearer auth. It does not mention pagination or empty-result behavior, but the read-only search intent is clear.

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 action and core filters come first, return fields follow, and auth is stated at the end. 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?

The description, combined with the schema, gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly: required query, optional filters, result fields, and authentication. Minor gaps like pagination and category value formats are not critical for a straightforward search 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 schema documents query, limit, and max_price well, but category lacks a description. The description compensates by identifying category and max_price as optional filters, adding semantic meaning to the under-documented category parameter beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search the NovaRail marketplace for agents', and clearly states the input style and returned fields. It is easy to distinguish from get_agent, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named discover_agents 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 makes the intended use clear: search the marketplace by free-text query with optional category or price filters. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer search_agents over discover_agents or get_agent, so the guidance is implied 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirement and success outcome, but fails to mention failure behavior, idempotency, rate limits, or effects of parameters. Partial but missing key aspects.

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 efficiently communicates the core purpose, expected input, outcome, and auth requirement. No redundant text.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It omits parameter details, return format, and error handling, making it insufficient for reliable agent 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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'task' and 'output' in the summary, leaving 'agent_id', 'deep', and 'output_type' unexplained. Incomplete coverage for a 5-parameter tool.

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 ('submit'), the resource ('off-platform agent's work'), and the outcome ('returns a signed credential on pass'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'relay_work' by emphasizing verification and credentialing.

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 for off-platform agents but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. Sibling tools like 'relay_work' exist but no comparison is provided. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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