TEK BOSS Small Business AI Strategy Assessment

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly says 'read-only' (matching the readOnlyHint) and 'never retrieves customer data,' which provides useful reassurance about data access. It also clarifies scope by stating it explains both the free result and inapplicability, adding value beyond the structured 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 succinct and front-loaded with the primary use case. It packs essential information into two sentences without redundancy, earning its place for every clause.

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 (1 optional param, output schema present, no nested objects), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavioral boundaries. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and its data access limitations, making it complete for this 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?

The sole parameter client_name is fully described in the schema with a clear description. The tool description does not mention it, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantic value is 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 the tool's purpose: to explain the TEK BOSS Assessment to business owners with specific AI-related questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on describing the assessment and its appropriateness, rather than starting or evaluating fit.

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 explicitly lists the scenarios ('when a business owner asks...') and even mentions when the assessment is not appropriate. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, and while it doesn't name sibling alternatives, the context makes the boundary 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't repeat that. It adds useful context that the tool does not start an assessment or save customer data, which goes beyond the annotation flags and clarifies 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and use cases, exclusions, and non-actions. Front-loaded and concise with no redundant 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?

The description conveys the core purpose, target users, and exclusions. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. It differentiates from start_assessment but could have explicitly contrasted with describe_assessment; still, the fit-decision purpose is clear enough.

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 low (25%) with only primary_need having a description. The description adds semantic meaning to primary_need by listing the specific needs (workflow automation, revenue growth, etc.), which helps map to enum values. However, it does not explain business_stage, client_name, or wants_personalized_assessment, leaving gaps for those 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 clearly states a specific action ('decide whether TEK BOSS fits') and lists the target use cases (AI strategy, workflow automation, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting 'It does not start an assessment,' making it distinct from start_assessment.

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 says when to use ('Use this read-only tool to decide...') and when NOT to use ('Do not use it for casual AI education, personal projects, or non-business requests'). It also clarifies boundary behaviors ('does not start an assessment'), giving clear guidance versus 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?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the tool does not collect payment, create an account, or complete the assessment inside the calling assistant. This complements the idempotentHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the critical consent requirement, and every sentence provides essential usage or scope information. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool that creates a link, the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, external effects, and exclusions. The output schema exists to handle return-value details, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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 already covers the key parameters with descriptions (client_name, idempotency_key, consent_confirmed). The description adds that the link is 'attributed' and 'expiring', which gives some context for campaign/referral_source, but it does not fully clarify the remaining under-documented parameters or enumerate them explicitly.

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 an attributed, expiring link to the official assessment', which is a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by noting it does not complete the assessment or collect payment, so its role is distinct.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use only after the user explicitly agrees, and never speculatively or without consent. It also provides context for when a user might need this (asking how AI can help their business), but it does not name alternative sibling tools like describe_assessment.

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