Texas Treasure Map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that the response contains days, hours, address, host and link, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It does not mention behavior when the id is unknown or invalid, so it is not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with what the caller gets and ends with the parameter's origin. 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, workflow origin and returned fields without needing to explain values (no output schema exists). Only edge-case behavior for an unknown id is absent, which is a minor 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the id with a format example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance for the id (it comes from search_estate_sales), but nothing about format or constraints 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?

States the specific resource (one estate sale) and enumerates the returned fields (days, hours, address, host, link), which makes the tool's job unambiguous. It also names search_estate_sales as the source of the id, so an agent can distinguish it from the search sibling 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 phrase 'by the id search_estate_sales returns' establishes the required workflow: call search_estate_sales first, then this tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of the guide/route siblings, so it falls short of a full 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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-scope context ('the full text ... with its questions and answers'), which matters because there is no output schema, though it says nothing about not-found behavior for a bad slug.

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 sentence, front-loaded with what is returned, no filler or redundancy. Every clause 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 simple one-parameter read with strong annotations, the definition covers purpose, input provenance, and return shape, so an agent can call it correctly. The only gap is that error or empty-result behavior for an invalid slug is not mentioned.

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% and the slug parameter already carries concrete examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description still adds value by stating the provenance of the slug (it comes from list_estate_sale_guides), which the schema does not say.

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 (read), resource (one guide), and scope (full text with Q&A) in a single clause. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_estate_sale_guides by noting the slug is what that tool returns.

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 reference to 'the slug list_estate_sale_guides returns' tells the agent it should enumerate guides first and then fetch one, which is a clear usage path. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives like get_estate_sale.

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, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description's listing of returned fields (titles, short answers, slugs, links) usefully discloses the response shape, but it adds nothing about scoping, ordering, or result size.

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 collection identity front-loaded and the payload described at the end. The parenthetical city-guide detail is dense but earns its place by explaining what the guides cover.

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 parameterless, read-only, open-world=false listing with no output schema, the description covers what the catalogue contains and what fields come back. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to its four 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 for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No misleading parameter language is 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 states the resource precisely — a catalogue of Texas Treasure Map guides (how estate sales work in Texas, plus per-DFW-city guides) — so an agent knows what content comes back. It does not, however, name the verb or distinguish itself from the sibling get_estate_sale_guide, leaving the singular-vs-collection split to inference from names.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives; the description never says to call this tool to discover available guides before fetching one with get_estate_sale_guide. Usage is only implied by the tool name itself.

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?

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: ordering method (straight-line distance), handling of missing addresses or closed sales, and the Google Maps link output. Annotations declare read-only/non-destructive, and the description complements them with operational behavior. Could note whether the returned hours reflect that day specifically, but generally 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints, then the fallback behavior. 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?

Covers inputs, processing logic, and output form (hours, map link). Missing specifics on the exact return structure and how start_latitude/longitude relate to start_city, but adequate for correct invocation given no 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 coverage is 60%, so some parameters lack descriptions. The description adds contextual meaning for date (defaults to the day most sales are open is in the schema, not here) and starting point, but start_latitude/start_longitude are undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline is 3 given the moderate coverage and the description's general helpfulness without filling every gap.

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?

Precise verb+resource+scope: 'Put 2 to 10 estate sales in driving order for one day.' Clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_estate_sales (finding sales) and get_estate_sale (details for one), since this composes multiple sales into a route.

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?

States the input count constraint (2-10) and that ordering is by straight-line distance. Explains what happens to unsuitable sales. Doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to imply when to use 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 declare a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: default window of 7 days and 15 miles, nearest-first ordering, a 20-result cap, and what fields each result contains (including the address-or-city fallback) — valuable since there is no 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose and ordering first, then defaults, then return shape. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes return values and count limits, and it supplies the missing defaults. Remaining gaps are minor (interaction of city with lat/long, radius behavior on the point query), so it is nearly complete for a read-only 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 coverage is 67%, so the schema documents most params, but the description supplies defaults not present in the schema (7-day window, 15-mile radius) and clarifies the city-vs-coordinates alternative. It does not address the latitude/longitude pairing rule in detail, which the schema partly covers.

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 resource (estate sales) and adds scope details: geographic area (DFW), ordering (nearest first), and defaults. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with sibling tools like get_estate_sale or plan_estate_sale_route, so it falls short of the 5 criterion of 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?

The description implies the use case (finding upcoming sales near a city or point) and gives defaults for date range and radius, but never states when to prefer this tool over get_estate_sale or plan_estate_sale_route, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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