Commonstop: Shared-route sharps and red-bag pickup for Dallas County offices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the topical scope of the response (business overview, request lifecycle, request fields), which is useful. It does not say whether the content is static or whether the response is long/structured, but with annotations carrying the behavior burden a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the content areas are enumerated up front. It is arguably too compressed for three distinct topics, 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool the bar is low and annotations cover safety, so this is close to sufficient. Still missing is any statement of the return shape beyond topic names, and the relationship to submit_request, which is the one decision an agent actually needs to make here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline is 4. The mention of 'the request fields' describes returned content rather than inputs, and does not confuse the parameter picture.

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 lists the content covered (what the business does, what happens to a request, the request fields), which tells an agent this is an informational/about tool. But it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and never says it *returns documentation* about Commonstop. It is distinguishable from submit_request only by inference.

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. The sibling submit_request implies this is the read-first orientation tool, but the description never states that an agent should call this before submitting, nor any condition or exclusion that selects it.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the full post-submission workflow: reference-number recording, review of scope and coverage, provider pricing outreach, email reply, conditions for a provider proposal, no ordering until written agreement, and contact-data retention with deletion rights. This gives the agent rich behavioral context for a write 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, but it is repetitive: 'It is kept with a reference number' and 'you receive a reference number' say the same thing twice. The privacy and commitment details are useful but make the definition longer than necessary.

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 complex eight-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description explains the process and response well, including reference numbers and email follow-up. However, it leaves parameter semantics largely undocumented, so an agent would still need to infer how to structure the requirement.

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% for eight parameters, including nested budget, timing, contact, quantity, geography, and specifications objects, and one action enum. The description does not explain what any of these fields mean or how to populate them, apart from an implicit mention of an email address.

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: send a requirement to Commonstop, which records it under a reference number. It is clear enough to distinguish this as a submission tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling describe_business.

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 'Send a requirement to Commonstop' and the subsequent workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or when-not-to-use exclusion. The no-commitment statement clarifies consequences but not tool selection.

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