Littles Weekly

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the sources included, the fields returned per event, and the default that results start from today.

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 dense but front-loaded with purpose, and the return-field list earns its place because there is no output schema. The parenthetical examples are helpful, though the first sentence is quite packed and could be structured more cleanly.

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 8 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it explains what data comes back, where events come from, and the default date behavior. Remaining gaps, such as pagination or city-slug resolution, are handled by the schema or are minor.

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 explains every parameter. The description adds thematic context such as kids 0–6 and seasonal/free pages, but it does not go beyond the schema in explaining parameter behavior; 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 states a specific resource and scope: dated outings for kids 0–6 in one city, drawn from this week plus seasonal/free pages. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search or get_page.

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 resource description ('dated outings for kids 0–6 in one city') and the default start-date behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as search or get_page. An agent can infer the main use case but not the boundaries.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: long pages return in parts, section narrows to one heading, markdown is an alternate representation, and cards carry official links plus a 'Checked' date.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the exhaustive content enumeration ('Top 5 picks, Saturday and Sunday plans, every outing, ... Santa and lights listings, getaway trips, tips') is bloat that buries the more decision-relevant routing facts (page keys, section behavior) mid-paragraph. It is one dense run-on rather than a structured brief.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming sections, per-card links, 'Checked' dates, the FAQ, and the markdown alternative. It does not explain the city/page relationship or paging limits in detail, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 75% schema coverage the schema already documents most parameters, and the description still adds value by listing concrete page keys ('this-week', 'guide', 'santa', etc.) and explaining that 'section' matches on heading text and 'markdown' swaps the return format. 'city' is left entirely to the schema, but its schema description is strong.

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+resource ('Everything on one Littles Weekly page, in reading order') and enumerates the contents, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also ties the 'page' parameter to the sibling list_pages, making it distinguishable from get_events or search.

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 concrete operational guidance: long pages are truncated so pass 'section' to get one heading, 'page' is a key from list_pages, and 'format: markdown' returns a different representation. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer get_events or search instead, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds some behavioral value by disclosing the returned fields and the fixed set of page types, but says nothing about caching, freshness, or result size that the annotations don't already imply.

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, zero waste: the capability and its payload come first, the routing advice comes last. The parenthetical enum list is long but is the substantive content of the tool's output, so every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so fully by naming the fields and the page types. Combined with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs before calling this zero-argument tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no syntax to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly spends no effort on non-existent inputs.

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+resource (list cities) and then enumerates exactly what the response contains: slug, current week, last-checked date, and available pages. An agent can distinguish it from get_page, list_pages, search, and get_events 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?

"Call this first if you are not sure of a slug" gives an explicit trigger condition tied to slug resolution, which implicitly routes the agent away from slug-requiring siblings like get_page. It stops short of naming those alternatives or stating exclusions, so it is clear guidance but not the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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 the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's useful addition is the return content: URL, last-checked date, section headings, and FAQ/card counts. With no output schema, that disclosure is genuinely valuable, though it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an empty result looks like.

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 that front-loads the scope ('the pages for one city') and then the returned fields. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical about 'site' interrupts the resource statement slightly.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers both the special parameter value and the shape of the returned records. Only ordering/pagination behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap here.

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 reported as 0%, but the schema's string branch does document slugs and the enum-like const 'site'. The description meaningfully extends this by explaining the purpose of the special 'site' value (site-wide pages like regional weekend getaways), which the schema only lists without rationale.

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 concrete resource ('the pages for one city') and distinguishes it implicitly from list_cities (cities) and get_page (a single page) by scoping to all pages within one city. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so an agent must still infer routing, but the resource and granularity are unambiguous.

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 rather than stated: the agent learns to pass a city slug, or the literal 'site' for site-wide pages such as regional weekend getaways. There is no explicit 'use this instead of get_page/search when...' guidance or any exclusion, so routing remains partly inferential.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds response context (results carry the page URL with anchor, official link, checked date), which is useful with no output schema, but says nothing about ranking, match quality, or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and scope first, then illustrative queries, then return contents. The examples are short and each demonstrates a different query type, so nothing feels padded.

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 covers return fields (URL with anchor, official link, checked date), plus scope and examples. It omits result ordering/ranking, which is the main remaining gap for a ranked search tool.

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 67%, below the 80% baseline, so the description must compensate. 'In one city or all of them' clarifies the omitted-city default that the schema ('Limit to one city') leaves implicit, and the query examples illustrate the free-text behavior of the required param.

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?

Specific verb (keyword search) and resource (every card, outing and FAQ on Littles Weekly), with an explicit scope (one city or all). An agent can distinguish it from get_page/list_pages/list_cities because it searches across all content rather than enumerating or fetching a single page.

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 example queries ('Santa breakfast', 'toddler time', 'free museum day', 'splash pad', a venue name) give a clear picture of when this tool applies, and 'one city or all of them' clarifies the city-scoping choice. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not to use it (e.g. use get_page for a known URL).

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