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

Without annotations, the description covers key behaviors: cancellation, refund, free of charge, and a failure condition (booklet printed). This provides useful transparency for an agent.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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

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

Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and a key failure condition. While it could detail authentication or idempotency, it is adequate 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing to add. The baseline is 4 as per guidelines.

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 'Cancel' and resource 'gift', with the specific context 'in-flight' and outcome 'return the refund amount'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_gift or get_gift, but does not explicitly differentiate usage.

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 only usage guidance is the constraint 'Fails once the booklet has gone to print', but it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_gifts or get_gift, nor any prerequisites or alternative scenarios.

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 charging and idempotency for 24 hours with an idempotency key, but the idempotency key is not present in the input schema, creating a discrepancy. No annotations are provided to contradict.

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 with no wasted words, front-loaded with the action verb, and each sentence adds essential 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?

Covers main action, side effects, and idempotency, but lacks output description and does not resolve the idempotency key parameter discrepancy.

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 no parameters in the schema (0 params), so baseline is 4. However, the description mentions an idempotency_key which is not in the schema, causing potential confusion.

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 creates a gift order by writing, printing, and mailing a booklet, with billing. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_gift by the action, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 placing a gift order, noting that the recipient can be the user themselves. It provides no explicit when-not or 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?

Without annotations, the description only reveals the return type and purpose. It does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are important for a tool interacting with Stripe.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the key verb and outcome.

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 parameters or output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the tool's purpose and result. Missing only minor details like the ephemeral nature of the link.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the action (returning a Stripe link) beyond the empty 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 'return' and the resource 'hosted Stripe link for the buyer to save a card or wallet', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_gift which create different entities.

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?

Implies usage for payment setup by describing the outcome, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives such as create_gift or list_gifts.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Return') but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive, no side effects). The word 'Free' is not a behavioral trait. Lacks disclosure on authentication needs, error states, or data recency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the key action and output. No wasted words. Appropriate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned. However, it could clarify what 'this account' refers to (likely the authenticated user) and that the tool is read-only. Missing error behavior, but acceptable for a straightforward 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 returns spending caps and month-to-date spend for the account. The verb 'return' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with gifts, pricing, etc.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions it is 'Free' but does not provide context on when to select it over other tools like get_pricing or list_*.

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?

Minimal behavioral info: 'Free' hints at no cost, and the description mentions what is returned (status, fulfillment tracking), but no details on side effects, authorization, or rate limits.

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?

Very concise (one sentence), but the conciseness sacrifices accuracy and completeness, as the missing parameter is critical.

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, no output schema, and missing annotations, the description fails to fully specify how to use the tool (e.g., how to identify the gift).

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 mentions 'by gift_id' implying a parameter, but the schema has zero parameters. This contradiction creates confusion rather than adding value.

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 tool returns a gift by gift_id, but the input schema is empty with no parameters, making the purpose unclear and potentially misleading.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_gifts) or what prerequisites are needed.

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 fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this operation is free and has no side effects ('no order is created'), which is sufficient for a read-only, non-destructive 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 concise sentences with no filler. The critical information (what it does, that it's free, and no order created) 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains its purpose and side-effect-free nature. However, it does not specify the format of the returned 'exact total' (e.g., JSON structure), which is a minor 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 input schema is an empty object, implying no parameters, but the description lists 'format, voice, image model, ship_to' as attributes of the hypothetical gift, suggesting they are inputs. This mismatch causes confusion about how to invoke the 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 uses the verb 'Compute the exact total' and specifies the resource 'hypothetical gift' with concrete attributes (format, voice, image model, ship_to), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_gift that actually create orders.

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 'before you commit' explicitly indicates this is a pre-order estimation tool, and 'Free, no order is created' clarifies it's safe to use. While it doesn't list alternatives, the sibling tool names provide context.

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?

Without annotations, the description adds key behavioral info: 'Free, no side effects.' This discloses safety and cost, which is sufficient for a simple read-only listing 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, no wasted words. Every sentence adds information: function, example, and behavioral traits.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, example content, and side effects. It hints at potential changes ('There is one today'), which is sufficient context.

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?

With zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing an example format ('manual_v1'), which is not 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 it lists supported booklet formats, specifying the current format 'manual_v1'. The verb 'list' combined with a specific resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_gifts or list_voices.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to list booklet formats), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives. However, sibling tool names are distinct enough such that usage is implied.

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 convey behavioral traits. It mentions pagination and 'Free' but lacks details on pagination mechanism, default page size, result ordering, or response structure. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 very brief (one short sentence), which is concise but insufficient. It front-loads the key action and features but omits critical details, making it under-specified.

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 and no parameters, the description fails to explain pagination (e.g., how to request next page), filter usage, or return value shape. A paginated list tool requires more context 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 input schema has no parameters, yet the description claims optional status and date filters exist. This mismatch confuses parameter expectations. Without parameters, the description should not introduce non-existent filters.

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 lists gifts with pagination and optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_gift or cancel_gift. However, the input schema has no parameters, contradicting the mention of filters, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. The description implies it's for viewing gifts but does not specify prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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?

Explicitly states 'Free, no side effects', which is critical for a tool with no annotations. This clearly informs the agent that the operation is safe and read-only. No further behavioral details are needed for such a simple listing 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 short sentences that front-load the core purpose ('List supported cover image models and their per-call cost') and add a safety note. 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?

Sufficient for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema. Describes the output (list of models and costs) but could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., array of objects). Still, the information is adequate 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?

No parameters exist (empty input schema). The description correctly adds no parameter info since none are needed. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description is fully adequate.

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?

Explicitly states the tool lists 'supported cover image models and their per-call cost'. The verb 'list' and resource 'cover image models' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling list tools by mentioning 'cover image'.

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?

Implied usage for retrieving available image models and costs, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling list tools (e.g., list_voices, list_formats). Minimal context for decision-making.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a non-destructive read operation by using 'Return' and mentions 'Free' (likely indicating no cost or rate limiting). However, it does not disclose potential margins like pagination, emptiness behavior, or whether the list includes all recipients without filtering. Still, for a parameterless tool, the transparency is high.

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: two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately; the second adds a minor qualifier ('Free'). No word is wasted, and the structure front-loads the important 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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention that it returns all saved recipients without filtering or pagination, but the existing text is sufficient for basic understanding. The sibling tools are diverse, so this tool's niche is clear.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, when coverage is high, baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter information (none exist), so no value added beyond schema. Score is 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 the action ('Return') and the resource ('the account's saved recipients'), with a parenthetical clarification ('address book'). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'list_formats' or 'list_gifts' which return different entities. The verb-adverb 'Return' clearly indicates a read operation, and the context 'account's saved' scopes the tool appropriately.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions, related tools, or use cases. It simply states the function without helping the agent decide among siblings (e.g., when to call 'list_recipients' vs. 'get_account').

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free and has no side effects, implying it is a read-only operation. It also explains what information is returned (voices and cover image preferences). This is transparent enough for a simple list tool with no parameters.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it lists, that it's free and safe, and when to call it. 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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, clear purpose), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage ordering, and safety. There are no gaps in context for an AI 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter context since none exist.

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 lists the three specific comedic voices and their preferred cover image model. It uses a specific verb 'List' and a specific resource 'voices', distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_formats, list_image_models, etc.

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 'Call this first to pick a voice,' providing strong usage guidance. It also states 'Free, no side effects,' indicating it's safe to call. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the guidance is clear enough for a simple tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses that the tool does not charge or order, is free, and surfaces refusals. It implies read-only behavior, though it could be more explicit about the return format on success.

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

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

The description is two sentences long, starting with the main purpose, and contains no filler content. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides all necessary context: it validates, is free, and should precede create_gift. The sibling tool list reinforces this guidance.

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?

No parameters exist, and the description does not need to add further meaning. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it provides 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 verb 'Run the content policy' and the resource 'brief', and it distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying it is free and should be called before create_gift to surface refusals early.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call before create_gift and explains the benefit of surfacing refusals early, providing clear context and alternatives.

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