PrepPort Global Service Planner

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description correctly focuses on scope limits instead: it is illustrative, based on public rates, excludes freight and pass-through costs, and does not submit or approve anything. That is real added context beyond the structured fields, though return format and precision caveats are still unstated.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then conditional requirements, then scope limits. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or obvious restatement.

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 does convey the shape of the result (an illustrative USD subtotal) and the conditional input requirements, plus what is excluded. It is nearly complete for this complexity level; only the response precision/format remains implicit.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does the most important part: mapping each service enum value to the parameters it requires. It does not define units/months/orders semantics (e.g. billing period length) or note the numeric bounds, so it is not fully compensating.

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?

"Calculate an illustrative USD base-service subtotal from public rates" names a specific verb and a specific output artifact (illustrative cost estimate), which is clearly distinct from the sibling list_/plan_ tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands just below the top mark.

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 per-service applicability rules (inspection needs sampleChecks; prep needs units; fulfillment needs orders; storage needs cubicMeters and months) and an explicit exclusion for one enum value ("Sourcing is quote-only"). What is missing is any pointer to an alternative tool when the user actually wants a real quote rather than an estimate.

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 closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the result contains (starting rates, exclusions, source pages), which is useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how often the public catalog changes, so it stops short of rich behavioral context.

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?

A single dense sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly list-heavy in enumerating categories, but every clause (categories, rates, exclusions, source pages) conveys information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool.

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 listing tool with complete annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: what the records contain. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around ordering and result size.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for parameterless tools is 4. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 ('List') and a named resource ('public PrepPort sourcing, product inspection, FBA preparation, storage and fulfillment services'), enumerating the categories so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools estimate_prepport_base_cost and plan_prepport_first_job, and it slightly conflicts with the title's framing of 'Compare' rather than 'List', but the underlying purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would infer this is the catalog-browsing call to run before estimating or planning a job. However, the description never states when to use this versus the sibling cost-estimation or job-planning tools, and offers no exclusions or preconditions. This is minimum-viable guidance rather than explicit routing.

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 and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it lists what the tool does NOT do (no registration, inquiry, store connection, order creation) and warns against sending contact details or private customer data.

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, front-loaded with the positive capability followed by the exclusions and privacy caution. No filler; each clause earns its place, though the privacy note could be folded more tightly.

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 and rich annotations, the description appropriately characterizes the return ('requirements, approval steps and registration link') and its boundaries. The main gap is that the channel parameter's role is never addressed, but for a simple two-param read tool this is close to 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It enumerates the service kinds (sourcing, inspection, prep, fulfillment) which maps to the service enum, but omits 'storage' and says nothing about the channel parameter (amazon, shopify, etc.), leaving one of two enums entirely unexplained.

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 ('Return') and a well-scoped resource: the requirements, approval steps and registration link for a first sourcing/inspection/prep/fulfillment job. An agent can tell what it produces, though it does not name or distinguish itself from the siblings list_prepport_services and estimate_prepport_base_cost.

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 'first ... request' framing plus the explicit negative scope ('Does not register the customer, send an inquiry, connect a store or create an order') tells the agent when this is appropriate and steers it away from write-style siblings. It stops short of routing to an alternative when the task is not a first job.

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