mission-quotes

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

No annotations; description carries full burden. It mentions pricing and side-by-side comparison, but omits read-only status, permission requirements, and return format details (e.g., pagination). For a read tool this is a notable gap.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, no unnecessary 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?

For a simple one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: it returns a comparison of priced missions for a city. However, absence of any safety or return-shape detail leaves minor incompleteness.

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 the lone parameter has a description. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'city' parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 that it returns every mission priced for one city, enabling comparison. Clearly a city-scoped listing, distinguishable from list_missions (all missions) and quote_mission (single mission price), though siblings are not named.

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 comparison use case ('so the user can compare what is possible there') but does not state when to use this versus list_missions or quote_mission, nor any prerequisites. Guidance is contextually implied rather than explicit.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content and the 'Paris anchor'/'travel band' model, and implies a read-only priced-city list, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the content of the result is front-loaded before the call condition. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return values (priced cities, distance, travel band) and gives a usage trigger. Its only gap is omitting the optional region filter, which is minor given the schema documents it.

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 optional 'region' enum parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no parameter-level detail (it never mentions region filtering), so 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 (cities already priced) and the data returned (distance from the Paris anchor, travel band), and the mission-oriented siblings make the city-listing role unambiguous. The verb itself is only implied by the name, keeping it short of a full 5.

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: 'Call this when the user names a city you cannot match, to pick the nearest listed anchor.' That is a clear when-to-use condition with a stated goal. It does not name an alternative or a when-not condition, so it falls short of 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returned proof but omits read-only nature, side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, and response format, leaving behavioral traits largely undisclosed.

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 no filler. The first sentence is a rhetorical question rather than a direct statement, which slightly reduces front-loaded clarity.

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 no-param list tool with no annotations or output schema, it gives selection guidance and hints at returned proof. However, it does not describe output structure or clearly state that this is a listing/read operation, so gaps remain.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 identifies the resource (mission kinds) and return content (proof per mission) and ties it to mapping free text to a mission slug. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like city_missions or quote_mission, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 says to call it when the user's request is free text and needs mapping to a mission slug. No when-not conditions or alternatives are named, 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the return payload: indicative from-price in EUR, billable days, travel band, distance, and proof format. It also qualifies the price as indicative, but does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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 three tightly structured sentences, front-loaded with the core question and followed immediately by the return payload and parameter requirement. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 two-parameter tool with a rich input schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned, the required parameter combination, and the intended usage context.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic emphasis that both parameters must be supplied together to produce a valid quote, going slightly beyond the schema's required fields.

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 pricing resource and a clear scope: cost to send one person to a named city for one mission, with a defined return payload. It distinguishes itself from listing tools by its quotation purpose, though it does not name sibling tools explicitly.

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 clearly establishes that both mission and city are required and that neither alone yields a valid answer, and it directs the agent not to estimate manually. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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