Sherah

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the content returned (categories and example tasks) and its intended role in the signup flow, providing sufficient behavioral transparency for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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 states exactly what is returned, the second states when and why to call it. The information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a simple, parameterless, read-only lookup tool, the description fully explains its purpose, content, and relationship to sibling tools. The agent knows when to call it and what to expect, so 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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter guidance 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 states the tool returns task categories Sherah helps with, listing many examples and noting example tasks under each. It differentiates itself from siblings by framing this as the prerequisite check for request_sign_up_with_task.

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 when to call this: to check whether a request is something Sherah does or to describe Sherah's services, and specifically before using request_sign_up_with_task. This gives an agent unambiguous routing guidance.

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 present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals a key behavioral trait: Sherah emails a confirmation link and the sign-up only proceeds after the person clicks it. This goes beyond a simple action statement. It does not mention duplicate handling or response behavior, but the core side effect is clear.

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 with no repetition or filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by behavioral detail and usage guidance. Every sentence 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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the sign-up flow, when to use it, and the alternative. It lacks explanation of the required city/state parameters and the return behavior, but parameter names and the state enum cover some of that gap. Adequate for correct invocation in most cases.

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 only 33% (only state is described). The description does not explain the email, city, or state parameters beyond implying email is the person's address; city and state are entirely unaddressed. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 action ('Registers a person's interest in signing up for Sherah') and immediately scopes it with 'without a specific task attached.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tool, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 condition for use: 'use this when you have the person's own email address and their agreement to be contacted.' It also names the alternative, request_sign_up_with_task, and the condition that would select it ('If they have a concrete task in mind').

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and what data is submitted, but does not reveal the effects of submission, whether confirmation or response will be returned, or any side effects or prerequisites beyond checking available task types. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by directing the agent to a prerequisite. Every word contributes.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides a useful prerequisite but omits important context: how this tool differs from request_sign_up, what happens after submission, and any confirmation or return behavior. It is adequate for a simple request form but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 60%, and the schema already explains task, state, and neededBy well. The description adds only a loose grouping ('contact and location details') and references available task types, but does not compensate for the undocumented city and email parameters. This gives it marginal value over the schema alone.

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 ('Submits a request') and resource ('for Sherah to help with a task') and mentions the included contact/location details, so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling request_sign_up, making it slightly less than a fully differentiating definition.

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 gives explicit guidance to call get_available_task_types first before submitting, which is a clear usage context. It does not mention request_sign_up or state when to prefer one sign-up tool over the other, so exclusions are missing.

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