Lexington Radon Pros — book radon mitigation in Lexington

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the return shape (yes/no plus nearest served town), which matters given there is no output schema, but says nothing about invalid input handling or error behavior, so it is solid rather than rich.

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 core question front-loaded and the payoff (return values) immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, expected return values and geographic scope, while annotations carry the safety profile. Only the invalid/edge-case behavior is unstated, which is a minor 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?

With schema description coverage at 0% the description must compensate, and it does so only partially: 'US ZIP code' clarifies geographic scope. The 5-digit format is conveyed by the schema pattern rather than by the description, so this is a baseline-level contribution.

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 (Lexington service area) and a specific input (US ZIP code), and frames the operation as a yes/no membership test. That is precise enough for an agent to know exactly what it does, though it never names or contrasts the siblings get_service_info and request_service.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The lookup nature is implied by the phrasing, but nothing tells the agent how this differs from get_service_info or when request_service would instead be the right call.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a free referral service (useful framing) but says nothing extra about data freshness, source, or limits of the price information.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the subject and the enumerated return fields, ending with the call-to-action. 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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing the exact fields. An agent has everything it needs to call this 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 and the description correctly describes a no-argument lookup, adding the informative note that all results concern a single fixed Lexington, KY service.

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 subject (facts about Lexington Radon Pros, a free referral service) and enumerates exactly what facts are returned: towns served, prices, hours, response time, languages and phone. It is distinguishable from siblings in intent, though it never names check_service_area or request_service directly.

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 usage condition that implicitly routes the agent here ahead of request_service. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of 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?

Adds real context beyond annotations: callback within the hour during business hours, free to the homeowner, consent requirement, and a return reference plus next steps. Annotations already cover the openWorld/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the remaining gap is mainly that duplicate submissions aren't warned about.

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 appropriately short, but the parenthetical '(a vetted local pro calls back within the hour during business hours)' redundantly restates the preceding clause about the same pro calling back, wasting a sentence fragment.

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 what happens after submission (reference plus next steps), timing, cost, and the pre-check. It could still say what happens when the ZIP is out of area, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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%, so every field including zip, need, language and preferred_time is already documented. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond mentioning the ZIP, so 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 radon mitigation'), plus the service area (Lexington) and the concrete outcome (a vetted local pro calls back). This is clearly distinguishable from check_service_area, which it explicitly routes to for ZIP validation.

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 precondition and alternative: only for a real person who asked, with consent, and 'Check the ZIP with check_service_area first if unsure.' Clear context and a named sibling, though it never mentions get_service_info or states outright when not to use this tool beyond the consent constraint.

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