BuiltToWinWeb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool provides contact information and a quote link, implying a read-only informational purpose. However, it does not specify the exact output format (e.g., a URL, text, or structured data) and the wording 'How to contact' could be interpreted as instructions rather than a direct link. This is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. There is no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a simple 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 the tool's simplicity and absence of parameters/output schema, the description conveys the main purpose but leaves ambiguity about the exact content returned. It does not clarify whether the tool returns a link, contact details, or both, and it lacks guidance on how it relates to siblings like request_quote. This is sufficient for a basic tool but not fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema simply shows an empty object. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It adds no contradictory information, so this score 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's purpose: to provide a way to contact BuiltToWinWeb or request a free quote. It uses a specific verb ('contact') and resource ('BuiltToWinWeb'), and the title further clarifies it returns a link. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like request_quote.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since sibling request_quote likely handles actual quote submissions, the description should clarify that get_contact provides a link/instructions rather than performing the request. Without this, the agent may choose the wrong 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 provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the markdown conversion mechanism and the need for a site-relative path, but does not mention error behavior, authentication, rate limits, or response details beyond the conversion. The read-only nature is implied by 'Fetches' but not explicitly stated.

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 primary purpose and immediately followed by actionable usage guidance. Every word adds value, with no filler or 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the input format, and the output format (Markdown). The example paths further anchor the context, making the tool self-contained and easy to 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 schema already includes a description for the 'path' parameter with a default value, but the tool description adds concrete examples ('/' and '/blog/core-web-vitals/'), which enrich the semantics beyond the schema. Given the high schema coverage, this example pushes the score above the 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and identifies the exact resource ('any page on built2winweb.com') and the transformation ('converted to Markdown'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that target specific content types like contact, pricing, or 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?

The description provides a concrete usage instruction ('Pass the path') with examples ('/' or '/blog/core-web-vitals/'), making the invocation clear. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, but the general 'any page' scope implicitly distinguishes it from sibling-specific tools.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the core content (pricing model) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any side effects. For a simple info retrieval tool, this is acceptable but not rich; it does not explain what the response looks like or that it is static.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential pricing facts. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the title or input schema.

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 with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent what the tool is about and hints at an alternative for exact quotes. It could be more explicit about the return value (e.g., 'This tool returns the pricing model'), but the current text is sufficient for a simple info lookup.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining what 'pricing' means in this context (the actual pricing model), which is more than the schema provides. A baseline of 4 for zero parameters 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 provides BuiltToWinWeb's pricing model (flat fee, no monthly costs, full code ownership). It distinguishes itself from request_quote by noting exact quotes are per-project via the quote form, effectively differentiating between general pricing and specific quotes.

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 implicitly tells the agent to use this tool for general pricing information and points to the quote form for exact quotes. It does not explicitly name request_quote, but the context signal of sibling tools makes the intention clear. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the distinction is strong enough.

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. It only states 'Returns the service list with links' and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or any other behavioral nuances. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation context.

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. The first sentence provides context about the company's offerings, while the second directly states the tool's output. It is reasonably concise, though the first sentence could be trimmed to focus more on the tool's action.

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 parameterless tool, the description is adequate but lacks details about the structure of the returned list and does not clarify its relationship to the sibling tool list_offerings. The absence of an output schema increases the need for more descriptive detail about the response format.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds useful context about the nature of the returned services by explaining what the company builds.

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 'the service list with links,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool list_offerings, which may serve a similar purpose.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention list_offerings or any other sibling, nor does it specify conditions or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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 carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output content (pages with URLs) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention output format, pagination, or other limitations. For a simple list tool, the risk is low, but the transparency is incomplete.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action ('List all service pages and all industry pages') and adds a brief usage hint. 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?

The tool is simple: no parameters and no output schema. The description conveys what the list contains (service and industry pages with URLs) and the intended use case. It does not specify the response format, but for a listing tool this is likely sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 properties, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 applies, and the description appropriately does not need to elaborate on 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists all service and industry pages with URLs, and frames it as a way to check if a business type or service is supported. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_services, but the list scope and focus on coverage are distinct enough.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to check whether a particular business type or service is supported.' It gives clear when-to-use guidance but does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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 warns that this 'sends a real enquiry,' disclosing the side-effecting nature of the tool. It also states the success return value (a reference number). Given no annotations exist, this covers the key behavioral traits though details like error handling are absent.

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 well-structured sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds the critical usage constraint and expected output. No 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?

The description covers the operation's side effect, the precondition, and the successful outcome. For a simple form submission tool with fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete, though failure modes are not addressed.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that name/email should be the user's own, which is already implied. Baseline 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 action ('Submit a project quote request') and specifies the target (BuiltToWinWeb). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pricing and get_services by indicating this is a submission action, not an information retrieval.

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 explicit conditions for calling: only after the user has explicitly asked for a quote and provided their own name and email. This serves as a clear when-not to use, preventing premature calls. While alternates to sibling tools aren't named, the trigger conditions are well defined.

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 to rely on, the description discloses key behaviors: ranking 167 pages, serving direct answers from FAQ content when confident, otherwise returning snippets, and tolerating misspellings. This provides meaningful insight into the tool's execution and fallback logic, though it stops short of detailing output structure or error conditions.

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 sentences cover purpose, behavior, and usage guidance without redundancy. Each sentence contributes value: the first states the core action, the second details ranking and answer behavior, and the third provides a priority cue.

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 single-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description covers the input, processing behavior, fallback, and a usage directive. It does not explicitly define what a 'confident match' means or the exact response format, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 fully describes the single 'query' parameter with 100% coverage, explaining it accepts natural language. The description adds context like misspelling tolerance and FAQ matching, but these reflect tool behavior rather than parameter semantics, so it doesn't significantly elevate understanding 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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Search built2winweb.com and get an answer.' It specifies the domain and the tool's role as a site/FAQ search, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pricing or get_services by positioning it as the first stop for any factual question about the site's content.

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 instructs to 'Use this first for any specific question about what BuiltToWinWeb does or how it works,' giving a clear when-to-use directive. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-search queries (e.g., pricing), only implying that other tools exist for their specific purposes.

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