LocalHelpNow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the response structure (direct answer, price tables, repair-or-replace rule, FAQs) and that price ranges include sources and dates. However, it doesn't mention potential costs, rate limits, or whether the answer is generated dynamically or static.

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 and front-loaded with the key output structure. Every sentence adds value, though the first sentence is a bit dense.

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 does a decent job of explaining the return format. However, it doesn't clarify the relationship between the two parameters (e.g., how trade and slug interact) or what happens if the slug is invalid. The sibling list suggests list_answer_topics is a prerequisite, but that's not stated.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 focuses on the output structure rather than stating a clear verb+resource. It implies 'get an answer' but doesn't explicitly say 'Retrieves the full answer for a topic.' It distinguishes from siblings by describing the answer content, but the purpose is somewhat implicit.

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 implies usage by describing what the tool returns, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. Sibling names suggest list_answer_topics is for finding slugs, but the description doesn't mention that relationship.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The wording implies an informational, read-only tool with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state behavioral properties such as being safe or side-effect-free. For a zero-parameter reference tool this is adequate but not detailed.

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 with zero filler: the first states what the tool provides, and the second gives the usage instruction. It is front-loaded and scannable.

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 simple, zero-parameter informational tool, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the subject matter and the intended usage. It could be slightly more explicit about the type of content an agent should expect (e.g., step-by-step explanation), but nothing essential 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 has no parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on content rather than inputs, and no parameter documentation is 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 clearly identifies the resource (LocalHelpNow), the audience (homeowner), and the subject (what it does and how the match works). It avoids tautology and reads as a background/knowledge tool rather than an action tool, though it could use a more explicit verb like 'explains' or 'describes.'

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 instruction 'Read this before telling anyone how to get help' gives a clear when-to-use signal and positions this tool as a prerequisite to answering. It does not name sibling tools or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when to consult it.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool returns a list, what fields each topic contains, whether the trade filter is exact or partial, or anything about output shape. It only says what topics cover, not how the tool behaves when called.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. It communicates the substantive scope in a compact way. However, the phrasing 'Every question the LocalHelpNow Answer Layer covers' is a roundabout way to say 'list topics' and could be more direct, but overall it is concise and front-loaded enough.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must fill in what an agent should expect. It does not state the return type (e.g., array of topic names), whether results are grouped by trade, or how the optional trade parameter affects the result. For a simple list tool, the description is insufficient to ensure correct invocation and response interpretation.

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% for the single 'trade' parameter, which already explains it as an optional filter with an example. The description adds the phrase 'by trade', which aligns with the parameter but provides no additional meaning about allowed values, formatting, or behavior. 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?

The description states the resource (Answer Layer topics) and hints at content (what broke, pricing, repair/replace), but never explicitly says the tool lists or returns topics. The action is implied by the name 'list_answer_topics', not by the description. It does not directly distinguish itself from siblings like get_answer, though the content focus helps slightly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_answer or how_to_get_a_pro. There is no mention of typical use cases, such as browsing before asking a question, or any exclusions. The description implies a discovery feature but leaves all selection logic to the agent.

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