Sirfus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful context: the service is free to the person, contact requires consent, and a request id is returned. It omits any auth requirements, rate limits, failure modes, or what happens after the request id is issued.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences that lead with the action and the caller's benefit. Five brief sentences with no obvious padding, though the choppy one-clause-per-sentence style is slightly less scannable than a grouped structure.

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?

Covers the required-parameter workflow and states the return value in lieu of an output schema. Gaps remain for a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and two enums: timeline is never explained and name's role is left 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 50%, and the description restates the three required inputs (query, location, consent) plus the phone-or-email rule, which adds real value for the contact fields. However, name and timeline are undocumented in both places, and the large category enum is only handled by the schema's 'Omit to let Sirfus detect it.'

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: 'find one verified local pro for a person,' and notes it 'Returns a request id,' which signals it creates a request rather than reading data. It does not name or contrast itself with the siblings sirfus_search or sirfus_trades, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger with a concrete example: 'Use this when someone says things like "find me a plumber in Tampa".' It also states the precondition of consent. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for lookup-style queries.

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, the description carries the burden and does real work: it states only names and badges are returned, contact info is never exposed, and empty results carry a guiding message. It omits ranking/limit behavior and any auth or rate-limit context, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then privacy and empty-result behavior in tight sentences. The final "Any business type..." clause is somewhat listy but still earns its place by signaling scope breadth.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what is returned and what an empty result looks like, plus the privacy boundary. The remaining gap is the undocumented "want" parameter and result-count behavior, which is notable but not fatal for a lookup tool.

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 50%: q and location are described in the schema, but the integer parameter "want" (1-10) is unexplained in both schema and description, and category's semantics beyond the enum are not addressed. The description adds only "any business type," which does little to disambiguate the undocumented parameter.

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?

"Find signed-up Sirfus pros for what a person needs" is a specific verb+resource with a clear qualifier (completed signup, confirmed phone). It distinguishes itself from sirfus_request_pro, but never mentions the sibling sirfus_trades, so an agent can't tell how this differs from a trades-oriented lookup when the description itself says "Any business type: trades...".

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: use sirfus_request_pro when no pro is listed (empty results) or when the person needs contact. That is a clear when-to-use/when-to-switch rule. It does not, however, give any exclusion versus sirfus_trades, leaving one live ambiguity.

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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, or what the return format looks like. For a reference tool with no parameters, the safety profile is likely trivial, but the description still fails to disclose it.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the scope ('Every category Sirfus covers') and includes useful quantification (114 in 15 groups) without wasting words.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the return structure (e.g., list format, grouping) despite the absence of an output schema, and it offers no usage context relative to 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 has zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, zero parameters establish a baseline of 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 states what content the tool returns (every category Sirfus covers, 114 in 15 groups, with descriptions) but lacks an action verb like 'list' or 'get,' so the purpose is implied rather than explicit. It does not clearly differentiate itself from siblings sirfus_search and sirfus_request_pro.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings or any context for selection. The description only says what it contains, not when an agent should invoke it.

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