Gigstereo

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup, so the description's added value is in return behavior: each price includes its source and checked date, plus cityPageUrl. It also adds a citation requirement and clarifies that these are reference prices, not final provider quotes.

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 what the tool returns and stays compact across four sentences. Each sentence adds useful information, though the 'only reliable source / never invent prices' guardrail slightly restates the reference-price framing.

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 read-only lookup with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return content, provenance fields, citation requirement, and the boundary between reference and final prices. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both city and category documented and exemplified, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description aligns with those parameters by mentioning service and city but does not add syntax or validation details 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns Gigstereo's published reference prices for a service in a city, including source, checked date, and cityPageUrl. It also distinguishes this data from final provider quotes, which separates it from request_quotes and search_providers.

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?

It clearly instructs the agent to use this as the only reliable source of price figures and to cite cityPageUrl, and it signals that final prices come from providers. However, it does not explicitly name request_quotes as the alternative for final pricing, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it lists what the payload contains and discloses the conditional 'rating when the profile is owner-verified', warning the agent that some fields may be absent.

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 tightly packed sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and the returned fields trailing; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 assumes responsibility for return values and does so by naming the key fields and their conditionality. A one-parameter, read-only lookup tool needs little more, though it omits behavior for unknown slugs (error vs empty).

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 slug parameter is fully documented, including that a full profileUrl is accepted. The description's 'the last part of its profileUrl' adds only marginal reinforcement of what the schema already says, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Public profile of one provider by its slug') and enumerates the fields returned (description, city, service radius, price range, rating). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_providers and list_categories, though it never names 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?

Usage is only implied: call this when you have a provider slug, and the parenthetical explains where the slug comes from (last part of profileUrl). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or guidance on falling back to search_providers when only a name is known.

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, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive content-level behavior: names are Spanish, slugs are included, and the city list is limited to cities with a city page — the last being a real scoping constraint an agent would otherwise miss.

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, no filler, and the payload description is front-loaded before the cross-tool hint. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description carries the return-value burden well by naming both data sets and their key fields. It does not state the response shape (e.g. flat list vs. two grouped sections) or whether the list is cached/static, a minor remaining 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids wasting words on parameters and instead spends them on describing the payload.

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 precisely what the tool returns: service categories with Spanish names and their slugs, plus Colombian cities that have a city page. The scope qualifiers ('Spanish names with their slugs', 'that have a city page') make it distinguishable from get_price_guide and the search/quote siblings.

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 closing sentence signals an alternative path — search_providers and request_quotes accept plain service names — which implicitly tells the agent this lookup is for obtaining slugs/valid city values. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need canonical slugs or valid city identifiers' instruction, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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?

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the request is free and not a booking, interested providers contact the user directly by WhatsApp or email, and the user's name and contact details are shared under privacy/terms. This is exactly the kind of high-stakes context an agent needs before invoking an openWorld, non-idempotent 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?

Front-loads the purpose and uses numbered pre-call steps, which is appropriate for a consent-sensitive operation. The description is somewhat long and repeats the free/no-cost point, but the length is largely justified by the privacy and consent requirements.

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?

Complete for a 15-parameter, consent-sensitive request tool: it explains what happens after the call, how routing works, what must be shown to the user, and why explicit consent is required. No output schema is present, but the description states the provider-contact outcome clearly.

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%, so the schema already carries most parameter semantics. The description adds meaningful routing behavior for targetProviderSlug and reinforces the consent requirement, but does not elaborate most of the other 15 parameters.

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: sends the user's event request to matching providers on Gigstereo. It clearly distinguishes the action from a booking and explains the outcome, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as search_providers or list_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?

Gives explicit preconditions: collect real user details, show a summary and privacy/terms notice, and call only after explicit consent with userConsent=true. It also explains routing with targetProviderSlug versus city-based providers, but does not name sibling tools as alternatives.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: verified profiles expose price ranges and reviews while unclaimed listings do not, results are Spanish-language, prices are in COP, and the agent should surface each profileUrl. These are real operational facts an agent needs to present results correctly.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the verified-vs-unclaimed caveat and locale/currency notes following. The parenthetical provider list is slightly long but genuinely useful for matching user phrasing; there is 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 carries the burden of describing results and does so at a high level (price range and reviews only for verified profiles, link out to profileUrl). It does not say how many fields each result contains or what an empty result looks like, but is otherwise sufficient for a read-only search tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including examples and the default limit. The description echoes the city-plus-optional-service/name pattern without adding syntax, matching behavior, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (marketplace of event providers in Colombia), and enumerates the provider types covered. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_provider (single lookup) and list_categories (taxonomy), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Makes usage clear: city is the anchor, service or name are optional refinements, and category slugs come from list_categories. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_provider or request_quotes over searching, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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