HireLocksmiths — Locksmith Finder

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavioral traits: it's a booking REQUEST (not guaranteed), the locksmith confirms time/price/ETA, and returns a reference ID (HL-####). This reveals the non-guaranteed nature and output format, though it does not mention idempotency or error conditions.

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 concise at 5 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, parameter hints, behavior, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving clear and efficient communication.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It covers only a few parameters and does not explain required fields, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., needing a selected locksmith). The agent would be underinformed for correct usage.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It explains 'preferred_time' format and that phone (preferred) or email should be provided. However, only 3 of 9 parameters are addressed; required parameters like 'locksmith_id' and 'name' are not explained, leaving significant gaps.

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 creates a booking request with a specific locksmith, specifying the action ('Create a booking request') and the resource ('with a specific locksmith'). It distinguishes from sibling 'request_quote' by saying 'firmer than request_quote', clarifying that this tool results in a real booking rather than a quote.

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 'ONLY call when the user wants to book a job — it sends a real request', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also contrasts with 'request_quote' implicitly, indicating that this tool is for actual booking not quoting.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly states output (served, vetted providers, 24/7) and explicitly says it does not return real-time status, avoiding misinterpretation.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers purpose, input modes, output, and limitations. Lacks error handling or edge cases, but for a simple coverage check it is fairly complete given no output schema.

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?

0% schema coverage, so description must compensate. Mentions locksmith_id and location, explains location is ZIP/city, but lacks format details and relationship to other tools. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description clearly states it checks coverage for a provider or area, with specific verbs and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like request_quote by noting it does not return real-time availability.

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?

Explicitly tells when not to use (for real-time availability) and directs to request_quote. Could be more explicit about when to use over siblings, but provides key 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?

With no annotations, description fully carries burden. Discloses that eta_minutes is null, and what the tool returns (vetted providers count, emergency coverage). Warns against inventing numbers.

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?

Short paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, description explains return values: null eta_minutes, provider count, emergency coverage. Also references sibling tool for completeness. Fully adequate for a simple one-parameter 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 has 0% description coverage but description adds meaning: location should be a ZIP or city. Adds purpose context for the parameter.

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?

Clearly states verb+resource: 'Get an ETA proxy for a location'. Distinguishes from sibling request_quote by clarifying that this is not a real ETA but a proxy.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: to get provider count and emergency coverage info. Tells when not to use: for real ETA, use request_quote. Includes caution 'Never invent a number of minutes'.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists return fields but does not mention any side effects, authentication, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return fields are listed efficiently.

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 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter source, and return fields completely. Nothing essential is missing for this simple 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?

The schema has 0% coverage (no description for the parameter), but the description explains that locksmith_id comes from search_locksmiths, providing meaningful context beyond the schema title.

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 'Get the full profile for one locksmith by id' with a specific verb (Get), resource (profile), and method. It also references the sibling tool search_locksmiths, distinguishing the two.

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 after search_locksmiths by mentioning 'from search_locksmiths', giving context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sends a real request to the locksmith and returns a reference ID (HL-####), with the locksmith confirming availability/price/ETA directly. This provides adequate transparency for an agent.

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 concise yet informative, with a clear structure: overall purpose, usage constraint, outcome, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and key info is front-loaded.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs meaningfully and mentions the return value (reference id). It does not discuss error cases or idempotency, but is otherwise complete for this type of lead creation 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 0%, but the description adds comprehensive parameter semantics: required fields (locksmith_id, name), phone/email requirement ('Phone OR email is required'), and examples for service and urgency. This fully compensates for the schema gaps.

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 creates a lead by asking a specific locksmith for a quote. It uses specific verb-resource ('Create a lead', 'ask for a quote') and distinguishes from siblings like 'book_job' (post-quote) and 'get_locksmith' (information 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 states 'ONLY call this when the user has chosen a provider and wants to be contacted', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient given sibling names.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses results are human-vetted, featured first, and price/ETA are not pre-listed. Lacks mention of rate limits or auth, but sufficient for this tool.

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?

Concise yet comprehensive. Purpose, return fields, parameter descriptions, and a key note are all included in a clear, structured format without 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?

No output schema, but description lists all returned fields (id, name, city, services, rating, flags, phone, profile URL) and states what is NOT included. Complete for a 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 coverage is 0%, but description adds detailed explanations for all 5 parameters: location format, service examples, urgency examples, budget hint, limit range/default.

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's purpose: find vetted, licensed locksmiths near a location. It distinguishes from siblings like get_locksmith (single provider) and request_quote (for quotes).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first when a user needs a locksmith' and advises not to invent prices/ETAs, guiding the agent to use request_quote for those details.

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