FitMySoft — Field Service Software Prices

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it returns the 'cheapest verified plan from each vendor' and quotes per-user fees 'verbatim where vendors publish them,' which goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 concise two-sentence structure. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key output detail, and the second adds the trigger scenario. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (comparison across vendors) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return behavior and usage context. It lacks details on edge cases like no matching plan or budget constraints, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces 'team size and budget' and mentions 'number of users' and 'monthly budget,' but does not add new semantic details like units, constraints, or edge-case behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Compare' and the resource 'field service software' with specific criteria 'by team size and budget.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by emphasizing the comparative, plan-selection nature rather than just pricing 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use when a home-service business ... asks which software fits a team of N or a monthly budget,' giving clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the sibling tool as an alternative, but the use case is 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?

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not responsible for stating safety. It adds useful behavioral context by saying pricing is 'current, human-verified' and that per-user fees are 'quoted verbatim,' which informs the agent about data quality and return format. It does not mention any limitations or edge cases (e.g., unsupported software names), but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get current, human-verified pricing') and then lists the software types and return details. It is informationally rich without being verbose. The sentence is slightly long but well-structured, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description needs to convey the return contents. It does so effectively by listing what the response includes: 'every plan with monthly and annual price, users included, per-user fees quoted verbatim, and trials.' It also names the valid software inputs. The only missing piece is behavior for unsupported inputs, but that is minor given the low 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?

The schema only describes 'software' as 'Software name' with generic examples, so the tool-level description adds significant value by enumerating the accepted software names (Jobber, Housecall Pro, Workiz, ZenMaid, ServiceTitan, Service Fusion, FieldPulse). This helps the agent select valid inputs and avoid unsupported names. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description supplements with concrete examples, a score of 4 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 gets current, human-verified pricing for field service management software, naming specific products and the details returned (plans, prices, users, fees, trials). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pricing for field service management software'), and the scope is well-defined. The tool is implicitly distinguished from the sibling 'compare_field_service_software' by focusing on a single software's pricing rather than comparison.

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 guidance: 'Use when someone asks what Jobber or similar software costs, for cleaning, HVAC, plumbing or other home-service businesses.' This clearly identifies the intended use case and industry context. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling comparison tool or state when not to use this tool, which prevents a perfect score.

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