TexasRatedPros Rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond these annotations: it tells the agent the comparison will be 'pillar by pillar' and produce a 'one-sentence verdict', which clarifies the operational output structure. It does not contradict any annotation, and the description goes beyond what annotations imply about behavior.

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 sentence of about 20 words, front-loaded with the core action ('Compare') and fully specifies scope, method, and output. Every clause adds value: the input range, the comparison style, and the verdict format. There is no filler or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema present, rich annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It explains the core behavior and output, and the output schema can handle return details. The main gap is the lack of guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings, and it does not mention the optional metro/category parameters which might affect comparison context, but these are documented in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 already provides descriptions for metro and category ('Optional metro slug selecting a shared ranking context'), so those parameters are covered. The description reinforces the range of the slugs array via 'two to four companies', directly mapping to the schema's minItems/maxItems constraints. However, it does not add further meaning to the optional metro/category parameters or explain the concept of 'pillar', leaving semantic coverage at the schema level with modest augmentation.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Compare' and identifies the resource as 'companies' (businesses), directly stating the action and scope. It explicitly specifies the input range ('two to four'), the comparison method ('side by side, pillar by pillar'), and the output format ('one-sentence verdict naming which pillar separates them'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_business_profile or get_rankings.

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 implies usage for comparative analysis ('Compare two to four companies') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or refer to sibling tools (e.g., use get_business_profile for a single company). Since context signals list siblings but the description offers no contrast, it provides only implied usage context.

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 and idempotentHint=true, so safety is established. The description adds value by detailing the exact scope of data returned, including verification statuses and review dates, but does not disclose potential edge cases or limitations. 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?

One well-structured sentence with a colon and list, efficiently conveying the comprehensive scope without redundancy. Minimal word count for the content covered.

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 read-only profile retrieval tool with a single parameter, complete output schema, and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and data categories. No critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 fully describes the only parameter (slug) with a clear description and 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond indicating the profile is for one company, which is already evident from the schema. 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 clearly states the tool retrieves everything published about one company, enumerating specific content areas (pillar scores, verification details, review figures, rankings). It distinguishes from siblings like compare_businesses and get_score_breakdown by being the comprehensive single-company profile 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?

The description implies use for a single company's full profile but does not explicitly state when to use this over get_score_breakdown or compare_businesses. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned; usage context is inferred rather than explicitly guided.

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. The description adds value by detailing the methodology content and its intended role as a reference, without contradicting 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: the first densely lists the components of the methodology, and the second gives a direct usage directive. Both sentences earn their place with no redundancy or 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?

Given the simple no-parameter read-only tool and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, content, and usage timing. Nothing essential 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 zero parameters, the schema trivially covers 100% of parameters. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output/content rather than inputs, which is the baseline expectation for no-parameter tools.

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 specifies the tool provides 'exact weights, thresholds, eligibility rules, data sources, and stated limitations behind every score.' This is specific and distinctive, especially when compared to sibling tools like get_score_breakdown or get_rankings, which focus on individual results rather than the underlying methodology.

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 instruction to 'Read this before characterising what a TRP Score means' gives clear context for when to use the tool first. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, falling just short of the highest bar.

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?

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that franchises/chains are excluded by editorial policy and that unranked companies are included with reasons. This supplements the readOnly/idempotent hints with domain-specific rules, though it does not cover pagination or other possible behaviors.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. The policy note about franchises/chains is concise and relevant, with no redundant phrasing.

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 read-only list tool with a clear output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the main behavior, scope, and an editorial exception. It does not mention limit/pagination behavior, but the output schema and annotations largely compensate, making this fairly 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for metro, category, and include_bubble; the description adds no new detail about the limit parameter or how params interact. It confirms the single metro/category scope but does not enhance the existing schema descriptions, so it aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool returns a ranked list of independent companies for a specific metro and category, with scores, verification status, and reasons for unranked companies. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing the single category/metro scope, making it unmistakable.

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 implies the use case—retrieving rankings for a specific metro/category—and the sibling tools (e.g., search_businesses, compare_businesses) are obviously different. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the response includes (rank, pillars, contributions, provenance) but does not clarify optional parameter behavior (e.g., what happens if metro or category is omitted). With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then packs in what the response includes. No redundant words or information. Every element 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?

For a read-only query tool with a provided output schema, the description adequately covers the returned data (rank, pillars, point contributions, provenance) and the ranking context. It could improve by clarifying optional metro/category behavior, but the overall complexity is low and the description is sufficient.

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 each parameter already has a label. The description connects slug to 'company's score' and metro/category to 'ranking,' but does not explain parameter interplay or defaults. This meets the baseline but adds no new parameter details 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Return' and defines the exact resource: one company's score in a metro/category ranking. It enumerates the contents (rank, weighted pillars, contributions, provenance), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_rankings (list-level) and get_business_profile (general profile).

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 implies usage context—when a detailed single-company score breakdown is needed—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_rankings or compare_businesses. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful content context (the licensing note) but no negative behaviors to disclose. 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?

The description is a single sentence that is direct and informative. It contains no redundant words or filler, and the key information is front-loaded with the verb 'list' and the resource 'service categories'.

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?

This is a simple list tool with no parameters, clear annotations, and an output schema (referenced by has_output_schema). The description fully conveys the scope of the listing, including the licensing note, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. There are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description meets that by not needing to compensate for any missing parameter info.

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 tool lists every service category the site ranks, along with Texas licensing notes for each trade. This is a specific verb (list) + resource (service categories) + scope (with licensing notes), and it distinguishes from sibling list_metros which lists geographic metros, and other business-specific tools.

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 gives clear context by stating what the tool returns (all service categories and licensing notes), making its use obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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 read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantive context: it returns metros with published rankings, the categories they cover, and the slugs used by other tools. This explains the functional role and return content, which is beyond what the safety hints provide.

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: the first states the tool's output, the second provides usage guidance. No excess verbiage, and the key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does and how to use it in the context of sibling tools. The mention of slugs and categories provides the necessary context for an agent to chain this with other tools.

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 parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage vacuously. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't introduce any ambiguity.

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 that the tool lists metropolitan areas with published rankings and the service categories they cover, and it mentions the slugs that other tools expect. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_categories or get_rankings by focusing on metropolitan areas as the resource.

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 instructs 'Call this first to learn the slugs the other tools expect,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and positioning the tool as a prerequisite for other operations. This goes beyond implied usage and names the exact role it plays.

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 destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope of 'tracked companies' and the available filter dimensions, but does not disclose behavior such as result limits, pagination, or how verified_only affects results. With annotations covering safety, the added behavioral context is modest.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Find tracked companies') and immediately lists the key filter dimensions. There is no redundant wording or 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?

Given that the tool has an output schema, clear annotations, and a relatively straightforward search purpose, the description is mostly sufficient. It would benefit from mentioning that all filters are optional or combinable, and the limit parameter is not referenced, but the schema covers those details. Overall it is complete enough for a search 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 description coverage is only 33%, with query and verified_only described in the schema. The description helps by mapping natural language filters (name, metropolitan area, category, minimum score) to parameters, but it does not explain limit behavior or further clarify min_score semantics. It partially compensates for low schema coverage but not fully.

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 tool finds tracked companies by name, metro, category, or minimum score, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this search tool from sibling tools like get_business_profile or compare_businesses by emphasizing criteria-based lookup.

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 implies when to use the tool by listing search criteria, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not say to use compare_businesses for comparisons or list_categories for category metadata, leaving usage guidance only implied.

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