Garage Door Decision Kit by CLE Garage Doors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and need not be repeated. The description adds one useful behavioral fact not in the schema: the result is expressed in theoretical usage years. It says nothing about the calculation method, assumptions, or what comparison_rated_cycles does.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and behavior detail noted elsewhere.

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 three-parameter calculator with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: the comparison parameter is unexplained, the output format/units of the result are only hinted at, and no calculation assumptions are stated.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It loosely maps to two of three parameters ('supplied cycle ratings', 'daily complete cycles') but gives no units, formula role, or expected magnitudes, and completely omits the third parameter comparison_rated_cycles.

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 (calculate) and resource (theoretical usage years derived from cycle ratings and daily cycles), which is more precise than the vague title. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like check_installed_opener_quote or search_garage_door_knowledge, but the calculation framing is clear.

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 versus the sibling knowledge/search tools, and no prerequisites or context such as whether it is meant for spring lifespan estimation only. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful behavioral fact — the output is a set of follow-up questions rather than a pass/fail verdict — but says nothing about how the 'unknown' defaults are treated or what an all-unknown call yields.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action comes before the result. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, the description does at least indicate the return is a list of questions, which is the minimum needed. However, for a 6-optional-param tool where every field defaults to 'unknown', an agent gets no guidance on the expected completeness of input or how partial input changes the output.

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% with six self-documenting enum fields, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, priority, or interpretation guidance beyond what the schema already supplies (e.g. that unspecified fields default to 'unknown').

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 action (review user-reported opener quote inclusions) and its output (questions to ask the installer), which is more than a restatement of the name. It is distinguishable from the calculate/plan/search siblings by its diagnostic 'inclusion review' framing, though the phrase 'opener quote' is a bit insular.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling tool as an alternative. The agent must infer the trigger context (a user has received a quote) entirely.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the payload carries source page and verification dates; it says nothing about pagination, not-found behavior, or auth, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the action and the identifier's origin, with the second sentence covering returned content. 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent where the ID comes from and roughly what comes back (source page, verification dates). It is nearly complete; only error/not-found handling is unaddressed.

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 the single id parameter is already documented as "Published knowledge item ID or slug" with pattern and length constraints. The description adds provenance for that value (it comes from search) but no additional format or resolution detail, so 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 (retrieve) and resource (published knowledge item) and pins the input to the ID produced by search, which implicitly separates it from search_garage_door_knowledge. It stops short of naming a sibling tool explicitly, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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?

"by the ID returned by search" gives clear usage context: call this after a search when you already have an identifier. There is no explicit when-not clause (e.g., what to do if you only have a keyword), but the prerequisite is unambiguous.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a checklist and that prioritization is applied, which is useful behavioral context. However it says nothing about the shape or contents of the checklist, so credit is limited.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and the prioritization behavior come first. It is efficient, though very brief for a planning tool with five inputs and no output 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?

With five well-documented boolean inputs and rich annotations, the input side is fully covered. But there is no output schema, and the description never describes what the resulting checklist looks like or how prioritization manifests, which is a meaningful gap for an agent expecting a planning artifact.

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?

All five boolean parameters have 100% schema description coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'reported damage or unusual heaviness' loosely maps to the visible_damage parameter and hints at prioritization, but adds no new syntax or semantics 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?

States a specific verb+resource: organizing observations into a winter checklist, with the added dimension of prioritization. This is easily distinguishable from siblings like calculate_spring_usage or search_garage_door_knowledge. It does not explicitly name what it is not, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. Use is only implied by the tool name and the winter framing; an agent must infer that this is the seasonal-planning step rather than the diagnostic or search siblings.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing what comes back ("source pages, current verified facts and limitations") and what is out of scope (customer records, booking actions), which is genuine added behavioral 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?

Three short declarative sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the return/scope notes follow compactly. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully sketches the return shape (source pages, verified facts, limitations). It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, though it could say more about result freshness or how it differs from the sibling answer 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is well documented as a "Garage-door question, component or buying decision". The description adds no syntax, formatting or example guidance 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?

The description uses a specific verb ("Search") and a precise resource ("CLE published residential garage-door knowledge"), so the agent knows this is a knowledge lookup, not an action tool. It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_garage_door_answer, which plausibly overlaps in 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?

Usage is implied by the resource (searching published knowledge) and one negative scope statement is given — "No customer records or booking actions" — which rules out the transaction-oriented siblings. However, no alternative is named explicitly and there is no stated condition for choosing this over get_garage_door_answer.

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