Fixidu

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: the output is heterogeneous (either direct items or sub-categories) and recursive drilling is expected. This helps the agent anticipate response shape and plan subsequent calls.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action, then efficiently explains the two possible output types and the recursive pattern. Every clause contributes meaningful information, and there is no padding.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does a good job of setting expectations for the response: either items with pricing/images or sub-categories to drill into. It omits edge-case details (e.g., invalid IDs, pagination), but for a browse tool with one parameter and clear branch behavior, it is essentially 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 schema already fully describes the sole parameter serviceId as 'A service category id from list_service_categories' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this information without adding new semantics, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not elevate beyond it.

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: given a service category id, return what's inside it (either bookable catalog items with prices/images or sub-categories). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by describing the drill-down behavior that mirrors the Fixidu app, making it more specific than a generic 'browse'.

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 implies usage context: you must first use list_service_categories to obtain a serviceId, and you can drill into sub-categories recursively. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this versus search_services or get_service_price, but the input contract and branching behavior provide clear enough guidance.

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 and idempotentHint, which align with the description. The description adds context beyond annotations by stating that if the platform is unknown, the agent should ask or return both links, and that the agent should default to calling this tool when unsure if the app is installed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 verbose but every sentence carries a distinct usage rule, and it is front-loaded with the critical directive 'ALWAYS call this'. While longer than necessary, the structure (triggers, examples, fallback) earns its place for a tool that must be reliably invoked.

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 optional parameter and no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does, when to call it, how to handle the parameter, and what to return, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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% for the single optional 'platform' parameter, with enum and description. The description adds meaning by explaining the behavior when the parameter is omitted (return both links), going beyond the schema's field-level description.

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 real Play Store / App Store link for the user's platform. It uses the specific verb 'returns' and identifies the resource (link), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browse_service or search_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 explicit, detailed instructions on when to call the tool: 'ALWAYS call this... whenever you tell a user to book, check out, pay, or manage their account', enumerates specific trigger phrases, and even defines the default behavior when platform is unknown. No exclusions are needed since the tool is mandatory in its context.

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, and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds behavioral detail by enumerating the exact output fields (price, original price, duration, rating, image, requirements/inclusions/exclusions/FAQs) and the 'bookable' constraint, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the primary action and immediately specifies the target resource. It packs a lot of specific detail (field list, source tools) without any filler or redundancy, earning every word.

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 simple complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, full schema coverage, and helpful annotations), this description is complete. It explains how to get the item ID, what data will be returned, and the tool's read-only nature via the annotations. There is no missing information for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

The schema already provides a full description for the single parameter itemId ('The catalog item's numeric id'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description reiterates 'by its id' and mentions the source tools, but it doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource (a single bookable catalog item by its id). It lists the specific data fields returned (price, original price, duration, rating, image, requirements/inclusions/exclusions/FAQs), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like search_services (which searches lists) and browse_service (which browses categories).

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 states that the id comes from 'search_services or browse_service', establishing a clear workflow and prerequisite for using this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly explain when to use this tool instead of those siblings or mention any exclusions, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about the return payload (id, title, real image URL) and the 'top-level' scope, which the annotations do not cover. It does not deeply discuss pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation the added context is sufficient.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, examples, and return fields. The second sentence gives usage order and sibling reference. Every word contributes value; there is zero padding.

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 parameters, strong annotations, and a simple output described in the narrative, the description fully equips an agent to invoke and interpret results. It also positions the tool within the workflow ('first', then browse_service). No output schema exists, but the description names the key output fields, so completeness is high.

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 are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is given for 0 params. The description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation, and it adds no confusing param information.

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 the specific verb 'List' plus the resource 'Fixidu's top-level service categories' with examples (Electrician, Plumber, Cleaning). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting the 'top-level' scope and referencing browse_service for drilling down.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this first to see the overall catalog structure, then browse_service to drill into one.' This directly tells when to use this tool and indicates an alternative for deeper exploration, making the usage context unmistakable.

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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return semantics: 'Returns matching items with id, title, price, category, and a real image URL' and search criteria, providing helpful context beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Each sentence adds value: action/scope, return data, and usage guidance. 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 low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete. It covers scope, matching semantics, return fields, and a concrete use case. No output schema exists, so the return-field listing is sufficient.

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 single keyword parameter is fully described in the schema, meeting the 100% coverage baseline. The description adds meaning by specifying that matching occurs against 'item title, category, and sub-category' and gives concrete examples.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and clearly defines scope: 'across Fixidu's full catalog (every bookable item across every category)'. It also names match fields (title, category, sub-category) and return fields, distinguishing it from siblings like list_service_categories and get_service_price.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user asks about a specific kind of service' with examples. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond that.

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