Junely — Colorado Kids’ Camps & After-School

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond listing contents, which is adequate but not rich.

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 efficiently conveys purpose and scope without any wasted words or tangential 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 the tool's simplicity (one param, read-only, no output schema), the description lists all key return components (description, dates, ages, etc.), but lacks details on error handling or format, leaving 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% and the description restates the schema's description for the only parameter 'id'. No additional meaning is provided, meeting the baseline for high 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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('program by Junely id') and lists included fields, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_programs (which returns a list) and save_camp (which mutates).

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 states the tool is for a single program 'from search results', implying post-search usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude other contexts or mention when-not-to-use, though sibling tools provide 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?

Adds side-effect context beyond annotations: alerts triggered, identical to ★ on website. Annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) are consistent; description enriches with behavioral details.

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, zero waste. First sentence states action and side effect, second provides usage rule and prerequisite. Front-loaded with key info.

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 action, side effect, usage condition, and prerequisite. Lacks error handling or behavior for duplicate saves (though idempotent). Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 covers 100% of parameter documentation. Description does not add extra insight beyond schema's 'Program id from a search result'. Baseline score of 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?

Title and description clearly state the tool saves a program to the Junely watchlist and arms alerts, with specific verb ('saves') and resource ('program'). Distinguishes from siblings like search_programs by being a save/track action.

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 states 'Only call when the user explicitly asks to save/track a program' and notes account requirement. Does not mention alternative tools but provides clear when-to-use 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is clearly non-destructive. The description adds value by stating the catalog is 'daily-verified' and returns 'honest, recently-verified enrollment status,' providing context about data freshness and reliability beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more streamlined. Every sentence adds value, earning a 4.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema. The description mentions it returns matches with enrollment status, but lacks details on response structure, pagination, or default sorting. For a search tool with many filters, this creates potential ambiguity, though the schema’s limit parameter partially addresses pagination. Completeness is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 the schema descriptions already define each parameter. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or clarification beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or dependencies. Thus, baseline score of 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 searches a catalog of Colorado camps and after-school programs, specifying the data source (Junely’s daily-verified catalog) and filters (age, month, region, category, price, open availability). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_program_details (which is for specific program details) and whats_open (likely a simpler view), though this is implicit.

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 general searching with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like whats_open (which might be for unfiltered open programs) or get_program_details (for specifics on one program). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, placing it at a baseline needed level.

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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the tool sets an alert (mutation but idempotent). It also mentions sign-in required and identical to website button, which are helpful behavioral cues beyond 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 two sentences long, covering purpose, usage condition, and prerequisite without any fluff. The title also adds context (sign-in required). Every word 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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, simple behavior), the description is complete. It includes the action, trigger condition, and authentication requirement, fully equipping the agent to decide and invoke 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?

The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Program id from a search result,' achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add much beyond this, meeting baseline expectations.

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 sets a fills-up/closing email alert for one program, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_program_details (details retrieval) and search_programs (searching) by focusing on the alert action.

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 'Only call when the user explicitly asks to be alerted,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions the prerequisite of connecting the user's Junely account, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or name 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results are sorted 'freshest first', but doesn't detail pagination, rate limits, or behavior with no results. With annotations covering core safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, no wasted words. 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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain return format, default filtering, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a simple listing 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?

Description lists four of five parameters as 'optional filters' but doesn't explain their meaning beyond that. The limit parameter is omitted entirely. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate more, but it remains vague.

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 programs currently open for registration, sorted by freshness. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_programs (general search) and get_program_details (specific program).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for open programs, but doesn't mention exclusions or recommend alternatives like search_programs for broader queries.

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