OKC Windshield — book windshield replacement in Oklahoma City

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a yes/no plus the nearest served town, which is useful since no output schema exists, but it does not address behavior for malformed or non-US input.

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 the core question front-loaded and the return value following immediately. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter, side-effect-free lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. Only the routing relative to sibling tools 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?

With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the schema only supplies the regex pattern. The description adds that the value is a US ZIP code, giving some semantic grounding, but it does not explain format expectations or what happens for out-of-area codes beyond the boolean answer.

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 operation on a specific resource: testing whether a US ZIP code falls inside the Oklahoma City service area. It is instantly understandable, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_service_info or request_service, which would help an agent pick the right tool.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The question form implies the scenario (eligibility lookup for a ZIP), but the agent is left to infer that this is the pre-check tool versus requesting service or fetching general service info.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world), so the bar is low, and the description adds real value by disclosing the commercial nature of the source ('a free referral service') and by enumerating the returned fields in the absence of an output schema. It says nothing about latency, freshness, or rate limits, keeping it below 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?

One dense sentence that front-loads what the tool is, then lists the payload fields, then ends with the call condition — no filler sentences. Minor redundancy ('OKC' expanded again as 'Oklahoma City, Oklahoma') costs a point.

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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description carries the needed load: it enumerates the fields returned and states when to call it. Nothing essential is missing, though freshness/caching behavior of the listed prices and hours is unstated.

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 baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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?

Names the resource precisely (facts about OKC Windshield, a windshield-replacement referral service) and enumerates the exact content it returns, so an agent knows what it is getting. It implicitly separates itself from the booking/area-check siblings via 'before recommending or booking', but never names check_service_area or request_service.

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 before recommending or booking' gives an explicit sequencing rule and a clear trigger condition. It stops short of naming the alternative tools or stating when the tool is unnecessary (e.g., after info is already cached), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: a callback within the hour during business hours, no cost to the homeowner, the consent prerequisite, and a return reference. It does not say what happens on failure or invalid ZIP, keeping it below 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry unique information. However, "A vetted local pro calls them back (a vetted local pro calls back within the hour during business hours)" is a redundant restatement that could be collapsed into one clause.

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 7-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, latency, consent, return value, and sibling routing, which is close to complete. The gaps are failure behavior and whether repeat submissions create duplicate requests (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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 documents all 7 parameters including format hints for zip and phone. The description's only parameter-relevant addition is the geographic framing of the ZIP, which is marginal. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Book windshield replacement"), plus geographic scope (Oklahoma City area), and is clearly distinguishable from check_service_area (area validation) and get_service_info (informational). An agent can route 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the sibling: "Check the ZIP with check_service_area first if unsure," and states a precondition (a real person who asked, with their consent). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or an alternative booking path, so it falls 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.