KC Volts — book electrician in Kansas City

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the response shape ('yes/no and the nearest served town'), which matters because there is no output schema.

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, zero filler, with the scope question front-loaded before the return-value detail.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, geographic scope and the return values. It is largely complete, missing only guidance on what happens for non-US or malformed input.

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 single parameter carries a regex pattern that already encodes the format. The description only adds that it must be a 'US' ZIP, which is modest meaning beyond the pattern.

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 ('Is a US ZIP code inside the Kansas City service area?') and pins the scope to a named service area, which separates it from the generic get_service_info and request_service 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?

Usage is implied (verify coverage before requesting service) rather than stated. It never names get_service_info or request_service as alternatives or explains when this check is preferable to just calling request_service.

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=false/idempotent, covering the safety profile, and the description adds real value on top by disclosing the exact data content returned (prices, hours, response time, languages) and clarifying that the service is a free referral rather than a direct provider. It does not state that the call takes no inputs, which is minor since the schema is empty.

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, purpose first, action guidance second, with no redundancy. Every clause (what it returns, that it is a free referral, when to call it) carries 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so by enumerating the data fields. It is complete for a no-argument info tool, though it could have stated explicitly that no inputs are required.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description cannot document parameters and does not misrepresent any.

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 the resource (KC Volts) and enumerates exactly what facts it returns: towns served, typical prices, hours, response time, languages and phone. That is far more specific than the title alone and tells the agent this is a static-info lookup rather than a booking action. It stops short of naming sibling tools like check_service_area, so it doesn't fully disambiguate via names.

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 an explicit ordering cue relative to the booking sibling (request_service). However, it never mentions check_service_area, which is the closest alternative, so the choice between the two is left to inference.

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 only declare non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive, so the description adds real value: callback within the hour during business hours, free to the homeowner, and that a reference plus next steps are returned. The consent requirement is the main safety-relevant disclosure; what happens on invalid/out-of-area ZIP is unstated.

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-loaded with the action and the audience, and every sentence earns its place. The parenthetical '(a vetted local pro calls back within the hour during business hours)' partially repeats the preceding clause, which is mild 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 exists, but the description covers the return ('a reference and what happens next'), the cost, and the timing promise, and the required params are fully documented in the schema. Missing only failure-mode behavior for out-of-area or invalid ZIPs.

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%, with every field already documented including examples for 'need' and format for 'zip'/'phone'. The description adds only the ZIP-checking hint, 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 ('Book electrician in the Kansas City area') plus the callback outcome, so an agent can tell it apart from check_service_area and get_service_info without opening any schema. Scope (geography, audience) is stated inline.

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 a clear precondition ('for a real person who asked for it, with their consent') and an explicit routing rule: check the ZIP with check_service_area first if unsure. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. outside the service area), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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