What unanswered calls cost a home-service business per month, in extra jobs and in dollars, for a given trade and monthly call volume. Returns a band, not a point estimate. Without a real call volume it returns unquantified rather than inventing one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trade | Yes | e.g. hvac, plumbing, roofing, electrical, restoration | |
| calls_per_month | No | Inbound calls the business receives in a month |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / trade / descriptionPrevious value: -"e.g. hvac, plumbing, roofing, solar"New value: +"e.g. hvac, plumbing, roofing, electrical, restoration"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe read-only profile, but the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond them: it returns a band rather than a point estimate, and it deliberately returns 'unquantified' instead of fabricating a number when call volume is missing. That output-shape and failure-mode disclosure is genuinely useful.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by output-shape and edge-case behavior. Every sentence carries information with 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?
With no output schema, the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does—explaining the band format, the two output dimensions (jobs, dollars), and the unquantified fallback. Only minor gaps remain, such as units or the shape of the band range.
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 trade examples and a clear definition of calls_per_month already in the schema. The description echoes the inputs but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 (estimating missed-call cost), names the outputs (extra jobs and dollars per month), and scopes the inputs (a given trade and monthly call volume). No sibling tool overlaps this estimation function, so the agent can identify its role immediately.
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 input framing ('for a given trade and monthly call volume'), and the note about degrading when volume is absent signals an input condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to any alternative, and none of the siblings are compared against.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.