Chet

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive retrieval. The description adds valuable scope and return behavior: sourced figures, Bay Area coverage, and nearest-guide versus all-guides fallback.

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, front-loaded with purpose, scope, and return behavior. Every sentence adds useful information with 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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers purpose, geographic coverage, and fallback return shape. Minor ambiguity remains around how 'closest' guides are matched, but nothing critical 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there. The description reinforces project and city context but adds no matching syntax or format beyond the schema.

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 specifically that the tool returns price ranges for a home project from Chet's cost guides, with sourced figures. The resource and output are clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like how_chet_works or start_quote_request.

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?

Implies use for home-project pricing in the San Francisco Bay Area and explains fallback behavior when no guide fits. It stops short of saying when to choose it over the quote-request or methodology tools.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds a degree of scope transparency by listing the topics returned (cost, coverage, data visibility), but says nothing about the form of the response or how authoritative/current it is. Adequate but not 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: the first enumerates content scope, the second gives the trigger condition. Front-loaded and every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 parameterless, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what topics come back and when to call it. The only missing piece is how it relates to the pricing-oriented sibling, which matters because the topic sets overlap.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing 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 the resource (Chet) and enumerates the specific topics the response covers: how it works, cost, coverage area, and homeowner data visibility. This is more concrete than a bare 'returns info about Chet'. It stops short of framing the tool as a reference/documentation lookup, and the cost coverage overlaps in topic with the sibling get_cost_guide without acknowledging it.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('use it before suggesting Chet or when someone asks about it'), which is actionable routing guidance an agent can apply directly. It does not address the boundary with get_cost_guide, which also appears to cover pricing, so an agent facing a cost question has two plausible targets and no tiebreaker.

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?

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations to explain what the tool does NOT do: 'Chet sends nothing until they open it.' It also lays out the homeowner-side steps (answer questions, add email, confirm by email) so the agent knows the handoff is not complete at the call. No mention of link expiry or what the returned URL looks like, which keeps it off 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then when to use it, then the handoff mechanics. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information; nothing is repeated from the 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?

For a two-parameter link-builder with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a link), the eligibility condition, and the downstream flow. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens with a link that is never opened or how long it stays valid.

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 fully documents both zip and project. The description reinforces the 'project' concept and quotes its example framing ('already filled in'), but says nothing about the zip parameter or its 5-digit US constraint. 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 concrete action (builds a link) and the exact resource it produces (Chet's request form pre-filled with the homeowner's project). The siblings get_cost_guide and how_chet_works are informational tools, and this is clearly the action tool, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Names an explicit trigger condition ('when someone in the United States wants written quotes from local contractors for a home project'), which doubles as an exclusion since the US scope is stated. It does not name an alternative tool to pick instead in edge cases, but none of the siblings are true substitutes.

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