Jersey Snow Plow — book snow plowing in Morristown

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

Annotations already declare this safe, idempotent, closed-world read op, so the bar is lower. The description adds the output contract (boolean plus nearest served town), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior for ZIPs outside the US, malformed input, or what 'nearest served town' means when the answer is no.

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 short sentences, the core question front-loaded and the return shape stated second. No wasted wording.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return value, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (invalid or non-US ZIPs, out-of-area results), which is minor but not negligible.

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 the schema itself carries a strict ^[0-9]{5}$ pattern that communicates format. The description contributes only the 'US ZIP code' domain qualification, which is real but thin compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a concrete yes/no question about a US ZIP code against a named service area, and states the return payload (yes/no plus nearest served town). A verb+resource+scope is present, though it never names the siblings get_service_info or request_service, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 the framing as a coverage check before presumably calling request_service, but the description never says when to use this versus get_service_info or request_service, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false annotations already establish that this is a safe, deterministic, closed look-up, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds useful context that the entity is a free referral service rather than a direct plow vendor, plus the sequencing instruction. It does not describe freshness of the data or any limits on what the facts cover.

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, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and its content, ending with the action prompt. The list of covered facts is dense but each item earns its place given there is no output schema. Slightly long clauses keep it from 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description assumes responsibility for telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the returned topics. Combined with the annotations covering safety and determinism, this is nearly complete; only data freshness or referral-versus-booking boundaries remain unstated.

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 the baseline of 4 applies and no parameter meaning needs to be conveyed. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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 names a concrete resource (facts about Jersey Snow Plow, a referral service for snow plowing in Morristown) and enumerates what the facts cover: towns served, prices, hours, response time, languages, phone. That clearly separates it from a booking or area-check operation. It stops short of naming the siblings check_service_area or request_service, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

"Call this before recommending or booking" gives a clear, actionable trigger and implies the ordering relative to request_service. There is no explicit when-not or a named alternative for other situations, which keeps it from a 5.

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 (write, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses cost ("Free to the homeowner"), callback SLA ("within the hour during business hours"), and that a reference is returned. It does not warn that repeated submissions create duplicate requests despite idempotentHint=false, which is the one behavioral gap.

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 scope and the sibling routing are front-loaded, which is good, but the parenthetical "(a vetted local pro calls back within the hour during business hours)" redundantly restates the preceding sentence about a vetted pro calling back. That duplication costs space without adding information.

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 7-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, turnaround, consent, and the return value ("a reference and what happens next"). Only the duplicate-submission behavior is left unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: name and phone must belong to the actual consenting requester rather than the agent, and ZIP correctness should be validated via check_service_area. That constraint is not expressed anywhere in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Book snow plowing") plus a geographic scope ("Morristown area") and the constraint that it is on behalf of a consenting real person. An agent can distinguish this from check_service_area and get_service_info without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and names the sibling to use first: "Check the ZIP with check_service_area first if unsure." It also implies the consent precondition for booking. It does not say when to prefer get_service_info instead, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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