Remoto interpreting (ProZ.com)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful output-shape context: it never returns interpreter counts, and for uncovered pairs it returns hand-match and English-relay options. That tells the agent how to interpret edge-case responses without needing to open the output schema.

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: the core behavior and availability modes come first, with the negative scope and edge-case behavior following. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what the agent needs: the decision it supports and the special cases (hand-match, English relay). A brief note on what an uncovered-but-available-pair response looks like, or when to follow up with a booking tool, would close the remaining gap.

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% and both parameters document accepted name/code formats with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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?

The description states a specific check — coverage of a language pair plus availability mode (available_now vs book_ahead) — and explicitly rules out interpreter counts, which distinguishes it from find_interpreters. It stops short of naming its closest sibling (resolve_language) directly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-booking eligibility check, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus resolve_language, find_interpreters, or get_open_slots. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds useful context: public directory scope, the public profile fields returned, and the caveat that headlines are user-written and marked as such.

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 dense sentences, front-loading the core search action, then the returned fields and the userWritten caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still gives a useful summary of output fields and the userWritten caveat, though it omits sort and page mechanics.

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 73%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for some filters (language pair, specialty examples, online-now immediacy, HIPAA agreement), but it does not clarify sort, page, or verified_only beyond what the schema already 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Searches Remoto's public interpreter directory' and names the searchable dimensions. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as check_language_pair or get_interpreter.

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 implies usage through filters like 'online now (for an immediate call)' and HIPAA agreement, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives in the sibling set are not mentioned.

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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it flags that headline and bio are interpreter-written text marked userWritten, which is a content-trust disclosure the annotations cannot convey. It omits any note on behavior for unknown/private ids or error cases.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema, so some of it is work already done elsewhere, but it remains compact rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape needs no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the userWritten provenance note, an agent has enough to call and interpret the result, with only the sibling-routing guidance 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already explains the id-or-URL format thoroughly. The description contributes nothing about the parameter; baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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+resource: fetching 'one interpreter's public profile' by singular scope, which implicitly contrasts with the plural find_interpreters sibling. It enumerates the resource's contents, so the agent knows exactly what comes back, but never names find_interpreters as the discovery path to obtain the id.

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 only implied: an agent infers this is the detail-fetch step after a search, but the description never says 'use after find_interpreters' or 'use get_open_slots for availability'. No exclusions or preconditions are given, though the singular scope plus sibling set makes the role reasonably inferable.

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 safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: that most interpreters take scheduled-call requests rather than fixed slots, warning the agent an empty result may be expected. It omits auth/rate-limit notes, but output schema carries return format.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the scheduling nuance following. Efficient, though the second sentence drifts slightly toward explaining an alternate flow rather than this 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and full schema coverage handles parameters. The definition is nearly complete, with the only gap being explicit routing guidance against the booking-adjacent siblings.

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 fully documents all six parameters including date ranges, timezone, and language pair. The description adds no parameter detail beyond 'one interpreter', so 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+resource+scope: 'Bookable times for one interpreter' using Remoto's booking calendar rules. This clearly distinguishes it from price/listing siblings, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('for one interpreter') and the note that most interpreters use scheduled_request hints at the expected outcome, but it never states when to call this versus get_price_quote, get_start_link, or the scheduled-request flow explicitly.

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 establish this as a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: billing is per second after a one-minute minimum, scheduled calls are priced as a fixed total, and results differ based on interpreter_id. It does not cover error behavior for unsupported pairs, but the pricing semantics are well disclosed.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded with the core pricing model, followed by the interpreter_id distinction. Every clause carries information, though the long single-sentence construction makes it slightly harder to scan than a split structure would be.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return formatting. It covers the essential pricing model, the two mode behaviors, defaults, and the interpreter-specific versus aggregate distinction. A note on unsupported pairs or when to call check_language_pair first would make it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining how mode changes the billing model (per-minute with minimum versus fixed total) and how interpreter_id changes the result from a pair-level range to an exact interpreter price, which is genuinely useful semantic framing.

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 verb and resource ('client price for a language pair') and immediately pins down the unit and scope (per-minute USD, all fees included). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like check_language_pair or find_interpreters.

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 by the pricing context and by the interpreter_id conditional, which tells the agent when to expect an exact price versus a typical range. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance and no named alternatives, so the agent must infer placement in a booking workflow.

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=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar, yet the description still adds genuinely new context: that payment occurs downstream on Remoto's page (card, Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal) and that guests need no account. 'Creates nothing and charges nothing' reinforces the safety profile rather than contradicting it, though link lifetime/expiry is not addressed.

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 what the link is and what it enables, followed by the payment context and the non-side-effect guarantee. Nothing is repeated from the schema and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the mode/scheduling parameters are fully documented in the schema. The one remaining gap is that the description never mentions URL lifetime or whether the same link can be reused after a booking, which would matter for repeated calls despite the idempotent hint.

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 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by clarifying that source/target/interpreter_id are optional prefill inputs ('language pair and/or interpreter'), which the schema lists without stating their combination semantics. It adds no detail on starts_at/duration_minutes beyond what the schema already says (scheduled-only).

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 the precise artifact produced — a link the person opens to start an on-demand call or book a scheduled one — and adds that it is prefilled with the language pair and/or interpreter. No sibling tool (find_interpreters, get_open_slots, get_price_quote) produces a link, so an agent can distinguish this tool immediately.

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 by the workflow described (the person opens the link to start or book, payment happens on Remoto's page), but the description never says when to choose this over find_interpreters/get_open_slots/get_price_quote, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'and/or' prefilling note hints that language/interpreter inputs are optional but doesn't frame selection logic.

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 readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing what each entry contains (who it's for, how it works, how it's billed, a link), though much of that is also captured by the output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that puts the resource first and the per-item payload last. The dash-list is dense but every item earns its place by defining catalog scope.

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 parameters and an output schema present, the description only needs to set expectations about content, which it does well. A small gap remains: nothing tells the agent how this catalog relates to the specific lookup siblings.

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 to disambiguate; baseline for a no-param tool 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?

Names the specific resource — Remoto's interpreting services — and enumerates the concrete service categories (video/audio, OPI, scheduled, sign language, RSI, portal, API, pro bono), which makes the scope unmistakable. It does not contrast itself with any sibling, but the catalog nature is clear from the enumeration.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the browse/catalog entry point before picking a specific sibling like get_price_quote or find_interpreters, but the description never says so. No exclusions or pointers to alternatives are given.

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 (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds real value by disclosing the fuzzy-resolution behavior: it accepts informal names, aliases, dialects, countries/demonyms and codes, and returns the 'best matches' rather than a single exact hit. That ranked-multi-match behavior is not derivable from the annotations and materially shapes how an agent should consume the result.

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 compact sentences with the resolution scope front-loaded. Minor waste in re-listing the same example strings already present in the schema's query description, and the first sentence is a fragment, but there is no padding.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the input surface well. It stops short of stating what happens on zero matches or how ranked matches should be disambiguated, which for a fuzzy-resolution tool would be the last useful detail.

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 both query and limit are already documented with examples and bounds. The description largely restates the same example strings and adds only the 'including sign languages' nuance, so the 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?

The description identifies the resource (a language name) and the output (Remoto's language code), with the scope explicitly widened to sign languages. The opening clause is a sentence fragment rather than a clean verb+resource statement, but an agent can still tell this is a name-to-code lookup and distinguish it from siblings like check_language_pair or find_interpreters.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has a free-text language string and needs a canonical code. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of check_language_pair, the obvious sibling an agent might confuse this with when validating a pair of languages.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what comes back (snippets with source links) and enumerating the corpus, which tells the agent the answers are citable and authoritative. It omits behavior on zero results or the cap of 10 hits.

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 corpus scope and ending with the return shape. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only real hole is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which leaves result-count control unexplained.

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 only 50%: the 'limit' parameter has no description anywhere, and the description never mentions it, its 1-10 range, or pagination behavior. The query parameter already carries its own examples in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning of its own.

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 (Search) plus the exact resource and corpus it covers (support articles, FAQ, security/privacy/HIPAA facts). No sibling tool overlaps this domain, so an agent can route to it immediately without opening the 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?

The listed content domain (support/FAQ/security/privacy/HIPAA) makes the use case clear: policy, compliance, and product questions rather than interpreter/service lookups. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming an alternative, but no sibling covers this ground.

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