KC Windshield — book windshield replacement 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 establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious context beyond the annotations: the service is a free referral (not a direct vendor), and it discloses the return fields even though no output schema exists. No auth, rate-limit or freshness notes, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single well-formed sentence: resource identity first, then the data payload, then the call-to-action trigger. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden and it does, enumerating towns, prices, hours, response time, languages and phone. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The listed 'facts' are return values, not inputs, and the description correctly does not imply any arguments.

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 specific resource (KC Windshield referral service facts) and enumerates the exact data returned: towns, prices, hours, response time, languages, phone. It does not name the sibling tools (check_service_area, request_service), so an agent must infer the boundary with them from the ordering hint alone.

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 trigger condition and implicitly sequences this tool ahead of any booking action. It stops short of naming the alternative siblings or stating when this tool is not needed, so it is 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?

Annotations already cover the side-effect profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real operational context: callback 'within the hour during business hours,' free to the homeowner, and that a reference is returned. It does not explicitly warn that duplicate requests create duplicate callbacks, which the non-idempotent hint implies.

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 and generally tight, but the callback clause is duplicated: 'A vetted local pro calls them back (a vetted local pro calls back within the hour...).' The redundant parenthetical dilutes the otherwise efficient one-paragraph structure.

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, so the description usefully signals the return ('a reference and what happens next'). With 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the only real gap is that it never states whether repeated submissions are deduplicated.

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 seven parameters with formats and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the ZIP-check hint. 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 and resource ('Book windshield replacement in the Kansas City area') plus the operative constraint (real person, with consent). It is clearly distinguishable from check_service_area (area validation) and get_service_info (information lookup).

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?

Names the sibling alternative and the condition that routes to it: 'Check the ZIP with check_service_area first if unsure.' It also states a precondition (the person asked for it and consented). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use rules, so 4 rather than 5.

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