Lie Detector Test

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that offices are found with address, prices, and a booking link, complementing the annotations without contradiction.

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 with essential information front-loaded. No extraneous details.

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, the description adequately covers returns (address, prices, booking link). For a search tool with two simple parameters, this is sufficient.

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 describes two parameters with descriptions. The description adds context on allowable search terms (city, state, country) and the default limit, enhancing semantic understanding.

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 finds polygraph test offices near a place, provides search criteria, and lists return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle booking, pricing, and service info.

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 specifies when to use (find offices) and limits search to specific countries. It does not explicitly exclude other uses but provides clear context.

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?

ReadOnlyHint annotation already indicates no mutation; description adds nuance that the booking must be confirmed (payment done). No contradictions.

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, minimal waste. First sentence states purpose and parameter format, second provides critical usage context.

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?

Adequately covers the simple tool: one parameter, no output schema. Could mention potential return values (status fields) but not necessary given simplicity.

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?

Single parameter has 100% schema coverage. Description only mentions the reference without adding format details beyond the schema example. No extra meaning added.

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 the verb 'check status' and resource 'existing confirmed booking' with reference format example. Distinguishes from unconfirmed bookings via start_booking context.

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 states the tool is for confirmed bookings and clarifies when a booking is not confirmed (payment not completed). Does not explicitly name alternatives but implies start_booking for incomplete bookings.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those hints: the exact return payload (single, couple, group per-examinee tiers) and the deposit policy with currency-specific amounts and refund condition. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool produces.

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 dense sentence front-loads the core purpose, then delivers the important return details and the refund nuance. Every clause carries useful information—no filler, no repetition of schema or annotations.

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 only one simple parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and open-world variability, the description is complete: it explains what results to expect, including the deposit's refundability and exact amounts. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the query parameter already explained as 'A city, state/region, or country, e.g. "Miami", "Texas", "United Kingdom".' The description only says 'for a location,' which adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. This is the baseline for well-covered parameters.

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 'Get polygraph examination pricing for a location,' a specific verb + resource + scope, and then enumerates exactly what is returned (three price tiers plus the booking-fee deposit). This clearly separates it from siblings like find_offices and get_booking_status, which address different concerns.

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 makes clear that this tool is for location-based pricing inquiries, so an agent can confidently select it when pricing is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings or state when not to use it, e.g., no mention that get_service_info covers broader service questions.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the content of the returned information (what is offered, booking process, deposit/refund, service area, post-booking), which goes beyond the annotations. No behavioral contradictions.

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 two sentences. The first sentence concisely enumerates the types of information returned. The second sentence clarifies no arguments are needed. No redundant or filler 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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return value by listing topics. For a no-parameter tool that simply returns static information, this is complete and sufficient. No additional context is needed.

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 input schema has zero parameters. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments', which is fully appropriate and adds no unnecessary detail. Schema coverage is 100% with no parameters, so no compensation needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'general information about the lie detector test service', listing concrete topics (offerings, booking, deposit/refund, service area, post-booking). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_offices' (office locations), 'get_booking_status' (specific booking status), 'get_pricing' (pricing details), and 'start_booking' (initiating a booking).

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 states it 'takes no arguments,' which simplifies usage. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, the sibling names and the description's focus on general info implicitly guide the agent to use this tool when needing an overview, not specific per-booking or per-office details.

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 description adds significant context beyond annotations: it explains the process (records enquiry, returns reference+link, person must complete steps), warns that agent cannot act on behalf, and cautions about URLs. This aligns with openWorldHint and provides full behavioral clarity.

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, structured with a clear main action followed by important caveats. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 the tool's purpose (booking initiation), the description covers the essential workflow and constraints. It could mention what happens after the person completes (e.g., confirmation notification), but the core behavior is well explained.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it reinforces the context for using the parameters (e.g., location, service_type). 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?

The description clearly states it starts a lie detector test booking, records the enquiry, and returns a reference and a booking link. This differentiates it from siblings like find_offices or get_pricing.

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 implicitly tells when to use: to initiate a booking. It provides important usage notes (person must finish themselves, agent cannot sign/pay, avoid embedding contact details in URL). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the warnings are helpful.

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