Chicago Demolition Leads | Salvage Signal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns 'aggregate trends' and a 'ranked watch list,' as well as implying it provides current data. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 long: the first clearly states the tool's purpose and content; the second provides an alternative use case. No superfluous 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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description need not cover those. It fully explains what the tool does, its content, and when to use it, satisfying contextual completeness given the existing annotations and schema.

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% (no parameters). The description does not need to provide parameter information. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no parameters exist.

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 explicitly states the tool provides a 'current Chicago teardown-to-reuse overview, aggregate trends, and a ranked watch list with source and safety context.' It clearly identifies the resource and its contents, and distinguishes from the sibling tool search_salvage_signals.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool ('for a current Chicago teardown-to-reuse overview') and when not to use it, directing to search_salvage_signals for filtered candidate lists. This provides clear context and an alternative.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the scope of factual questions and exclusion of purchase links, which is consistent and adds value beyond the annotations.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides usage guidelines. 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?

Given no parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema (indicated as present), the description is fully sufficient. It covers the tool's purpose, scope, and exclusions, enabling correct agent selection and invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on behavioral context. Baseline for 0 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 uses a specific verb ('Use for factual questions') and clearly identifies the resource ('Salvage Signal's audience, free board, Daily Drop price, etc.'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_subscription_handoff' by explicitly stating what it does not do.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('factual questions about Salvage Signal...') and when-not-to-use ('does not prepare a purchase link') guidance, along with a clear alternative ('use get_subscription_handoff only after a human expresses subscription interest').

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, so the description's read-only statement adds no new info. However, it goes beyond annotations by stating it accepts no email or payment data and cannot complete a purchase, providing crucial safety context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences front-load usage context, output, and safety limitations. Every sentence is purposeful with no filler.

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 output schema present, description explains return values (terms and URL). Combined with annotations and schema, provides complete understanding of tool's behavior and boundaries.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter stating they are used for signup attribution. The description adds context that the tool accepts no personal data, reinforcing the parameters' limited role, but does not add new parameter-level details.

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 it returns "exact Chicago Daily Drop terms and an attributed signup URL" and distinguishes from get_salvage_signal_offer for price-only queries. This is a specific verb-resource pair with sibling differentiation.

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 use "only after a human expresses interest in subscribing or asks for the checkout path" and for price-only questions to use get_salvage_signal_offer. Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with alternative named.

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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that results are 'public prospecting clues, never site-access permission or inventory guarantees', which adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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: first front-loads usage guidance, second adds behavioral caveat. No wasted words, efficient and clear.

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?

There is an output schema (not shown but indicated), so return values are handled. The description covers usage context and limitations. It does not detail the structure of signals, but that is likely in the output schema.

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 all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions filtering by material, urgency, or result count, aligning with parameters but not adding significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'Chicago salvage signals', and distinguishes from sibling tool get_chicago_reuse_brief by specifying the use case for specific current prospects.

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 explicitly says 'Use when ... for specific current Chicago demolition-permit prospects' and contrasts with the sibling tool for aggregate trend summary, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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