Hire Solidmade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the shape of the response (inclusions, price, onboarding, page URL), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown id, so not a 5.

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 with the identity and provenance of the input front-loaded followed by the returned contents. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover everything needed: what identifies the record, where the id comes from, and what fields come back. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the id parameter already documents its origin ('Service id from list_services, e.g. care-plan'), so the description's 'by id (from list_services)' adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and singular resource ('Returns one Solidmade offer by id') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling list_services by noting it takes an id that came from that listing. The added clause enumerates the payload (inclusions, price, how to start, page URL), so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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 parenthetical '(from list_services)' makes the retrieval order explicit: call list_services first to obtain an id, then call this tool. There is no guidance on when not to use it or when request_quote is the better sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the catalog content and currency, but says nothing about behavioral traits such as result format, ordering, or whether prices are live, so it adds only modest value over the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the pricing detail is concrete rather than filler. It runs long as a single dense sentence, but each clause carries useful catalog 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing what the listing returns (offer types and USD prices). Nothing critical is missing for calling a read-only, zero-required-parameter 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?

With a single optional parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'category' and its enum. The description's mention of monthly plans, fixed-price jobs and quoted work loosely mirrors the enum values but adds no filtering syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('Solidmade's current offers with their prices in USD'), and enumerates the concrete offer types so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is far more specific than a sibling like get_service and clearly differentiates the listing role.

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 second sentence gives a clear trigger condition ('Use it when a user wants a Shopify store, website, automation or data job done by a studio'). It lacks explicit when-not guidance or a direct pointer to get_service / request_quote, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive call, so the bar is lower. The description still adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey: reply from hello@solidmade.co within one business day, one fixed price, nothing starts and nothing is charged until the user agrees.

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, consequence-first ordering: what it does, the consent gate, then the outcome and no-charge guarantee. No sentence is filler.

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 five-parameter outbound request tool with no output schema, the description covers consent, response channel and timeline, and cost safety. It stops short of failure/retry behavior or what the agent should do with the incoming quote, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the optional budget and service_id is already documented. The description adds no format, syntax, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (sends) and resource (a job request to Solidmade on the user's behalf), and the title pins down the outcome as a fixed price. It is unmistakably distinct from the read-only siblings get_service and list_services.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Only call it after the user agrees to share their email and site link.' That is real gating guidance, though it never names the sibling workflow (browse with list_services first, reference service_id) that naturally precedes this call.

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