Esther - DMA Yachting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits — the result is "live" (real-time, not cached) and a phone verification prerequisite gates the call — but says nothing about external side effects, rate limits, or what an unavailable yacht returns.

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 padding, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite following. Every clause carries actionable 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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is nearly adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent still cannot tell what an availability response contains (boolean? pricing? alternatives?). One clause on the return shape would close the gap.

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 id, from, and until are already fully documented including the YYYY-MM-DD format. The description only adds the framing that id refers to a single yacht over a date range, which is marginal 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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ("check live availability of one yacht") bounded by a date range, which clearly separates it from list-style siblings like search_yachts. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use first, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"Requires a verified phone number" is a real prerequisite that implicitly routes the agent through verify_phone/confirm_phone before calling this. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for the case where the user has not verified a phone.

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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about the effect of a successful confirmation, whether the code is single-use, how expired or invalid codes are reported, or whether authentication is required. For a tool that mutates verification state, this is a substantial gap.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the compactness reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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, with one required parameter and full schema coverage, so little is needed. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should still explain what the agent gains from a successful call and how it differs from verify_email, and it does neither.

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 required parameter is already documented as 'Code from the email'. The description only adds that it is the code 'the client received', which is a marginal clarification over the schema, so a 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 gives a specific verb and resource, 'Confirm the email code', so the agent knows the action targets a code rather than an address or account. However, it never explains how it differs from the sibling verify_email, so the purpose is clear in isolation but not distinguishable from a near-duplicate tool.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of when to call confirm_email versus verify_email or confirm_phone, no stated preconditions such as the code having been requested first, and no mention of expiry or retry behavior. The agent must infer the selection rule from the tool 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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say what a successful confirmation changes (for example, marking the phone number verified), what happens on an expired or wrong code, whether the call is idempotent, or what the result looks like; and no output schema exists to fill that gap. For a state-changing confirmation call, this is a significant omission.

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 repetition, which is efficient. The brevity is clean rather than padded, though it reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 write-ish verification step with no annotations, no output schema, and several closely named siblings, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from it how the phone number's verification state changes, how errors surface, or why this differs from verify_phone.

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 only parameter is code, and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already saying 'Code from the text message'. The description restates the same idea without adding format, length, or case-sensitivity guidance, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Confirm the code the client received by text message'), so an agent understands it validates a code delivered over SMS. It stops short of distinguishing this from the sibling tools verify_phone and confirm_email, which are the ones an agent would most plausibly confuse it with.

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 only implied: the client has received a code, so confirming it is the next step. There is no statement about when to use confirm_phone rather than verify_phone or confirm_email, and no note about prerequisites such as an in-progress signup or an unexpired code.

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 supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the blast radius ("everything stored about the client") and a safety gate (explicit client request plus confirm=true), but says nothing about irreversibility, whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, or any auth/permission requirement — critical omissions for a destructive operation.

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, zero filler, with the destructive scope stated first and the invocation condition immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 destructive, irreversible-in-spirit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers scope and the confirmation gate but leaves the agent guessing about permanence, recovery options, and side effects on related data. Adequate to avoid misuse, but not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 single parameter is self-documenting ("Must be true"). The description still adds value by framing confirm as a deliberate safety gate tied to an explicit client request rather than a mere boolean toggle.

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?

"Erase everything stored about the client" gives a specific verb (erase) and a clear scope (all client data), which no sibling tool overlaps with. It stops short of naming what 'everything' concretely includes (records, files, history), so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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?

"Only call when the client explicitly asks" is an explicit precondition that gates invocation, which is strong for a destructive tool. It does not name alternatives (e.g., a data-export or partial-deletion tool), but none exist among the siblings, so the omission costs little.

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, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: an external side effect (the broker follows up by email) and an auth prerequisite (verified email). It stops short of saying what the call returns or whether repeated calls create duplicate proposals, which is a real but secondary gap for a request-submission tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the side effect and the precondition. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be moved.

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 two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and precondition adequately. The only omission is what the caller gets back on success or failure, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 both the ids and note parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only light framing ('chosen yachts', the broker reading the note) and no syntax or format detail, 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 states a specific verb and resource: asking a DMA broker to prepare a proposal for chosen yachts. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_yachts, yacht_details, and check_availability, which are read-only lookups, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Requires a verified email' gives a concrete precondition that implicitly routes the agent to verify_email/confirm_email first, and 'the chosen yachts' implies a prior search_yachts step. There are no explicit exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough to act on.

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 and does well: it discloses the result volume ('up to a handful of boats'), the price nature ('indicative weekly'), and — importantly — the quota/authentication model (first search free, then 4/day via verified email or 10/day via phone, pointing at verify_email/verify_phone). It omits pagination, ranking logic, and whether empty results are possible, which prevents 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter strategy, then return shape, then cost/auth constraints. No sentence is redundant and no information is buried.

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 13-parameter, nested-object search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return shape at a high level and the quota model that materially affects how the agent should call it. What is missing is how filters combine (AND semantics), ranking of the 'handful' of results, and what to do on zero results — minor but real gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 per-field descriptions and three enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline applies. The description adds only the useful meta-fact that nothing is required and filters should be filled from what the client said; it contributes no per-parameter meaning beyond that.

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 resource ('Find charter yachts') and frames the input as a client brief, so the agent knows this is a discovery/search tool. It does not name sibling tools like yacht_details or check_availability to delimit the boundary, leaving the agent to infer that this is the entry point and the others are follow-ups.

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?

'All fields are optional; pass what the client has told you' gives clear progressive-filling guidance for invocation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus the siblings (e.g. call yacht_details for a single boat, check_availability for dates), so the routing signal is only implied.

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 and does disclose two important behaviors: it sends an actual email, and it mutates an account-level quota. It omits whether repeat calls resend or invalidate a prior code, code expiry, error conditions for invalid addresses, and whether the quota change is persistent.

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 with no filler, and the concrete action is front-loaded before the side benefit. Every sentence 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the action and the outcome but leaves the two-step verification workflow unexplained. An agent still cannot tell from this definition alone how the code gets confirmed or what happens on failure.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, validation, or normalization details beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: it sends a 6-digit code to the client's email address. This usefully disambiguates the name 'verify_email', which could be misread as completing verification. It does not, however, name the sibling confirm_email that presumably finishes the flow, so sibling differentiation is only 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?

Usage is implied through the stated benefit (raises the daily search limit to 4), which tells an agent why to call it. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of confirm_email as the required follow-up, and no note on ordering or prerequisites.

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 and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious side effect: it raises the daily search limit to 10 and enables live availability. It omits what happens on failure, whether SMS sends are throttled or cost-bearing, and whether the raised limits are permanent.

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 sentences with zero waste; the prerequisite is stated before the benefit, so the agent gets ordering and consequence in a single read.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, precondition, and side effects. The main remaining gap is the implied two-step flow with confirm_phone, which the agent must infer from sibling names.

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 single parameter already documents the E.164 format with an example. The description adds no further meaning about the phone argument, so the baseline of 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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Send a code by text message to the client's phone'), which is clearly distinct from confirm_phone and verify_email. It does not explicitly name the sibling it pairs with, but the send-code action is unambiguous.

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?

A prerequisite is stated explicitly ('Requires a verified email first'), which is genuinely useful ordering guidance. However, there is no mention of the natural follow-up (confirm_phone), no when-not-to-use case (e.g. phone already verified), and no guidance about resending or rate limits.

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 exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the response is richer than search results (extra photos, description, highlights, toys) and is implicitly a read-by-id operation, but says nothing about invalid/unknown ids, permissions, or whether a stale id still resolves.

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 scope and payload are stated immediately, and the return contents are enumerated compactly after the colon.

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 tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, enumerating the returned fields makes the definition largely self-sufficient. The only gap is failure behavior for an unknown or malformed id.

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 id format (e_ plus 12 hex characters) is fully documented in the schema. The description only adds provenance ('from a previous search'), which is a small but real supplement rather than new syntax or constraints.

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 resource ('Full details for one yacht') and enumerates what is returned (photos, description, highlights, toys). The phrase 'from a previous search' implicitly separates it from search_yachts, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: 'from a previous search' suggests it follows a search, and the schema notes the id comes from search results, but the description never names search_yachts as the way to obtain an id or states when not to use this tool.

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