renovation-room

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the listing is 'public' and 'full' and that the lookup is by id, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as return format or pagination. No contradiction exists.

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 with no filler. The main action, resource, source directory, and input coupling are all front-loaded, and every phrase contributes useful 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup tool with annotations covering safety and a schema fully documenting the parameter, the description provides enough context: what is returned ('full public listing') and where the id comes from. It does not describe the exact output shape, but no output schema exists and the description's wording adequately hints at the listing 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 coverage is 100%; the schema already documents id as 'The listing id from search_pros results.' The description mirrors this with 'numeric id returned from search_pros,' adding no new semantic detail beyond reinforcing the integer type and source. 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 action ('Get'), a single resource ('one contractor's full public listing'), and the key input ('numeric id returned from search_pros'). This clearly differentiates it from search_pros, which finds ids, and from the non-lookup sibling 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 establishes a clear workflow: first obtain an id from search_pros, then call get_pro with that id. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use conditions, but the id-source relationship provides sufficient guidance for this simple lookup tool.

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 mark this as readOnly and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the tool explains—the free wizard, what happens after submitting, and the direct link—making its scope more concrete 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 efficiently pack the tool's purpose, geographic scope, and routing guidance to start_project. The most important information is front-loaded, and 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 informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully supports correct selection and invocation. It covers what the tool does, the region it applies to, and the key sibling-tool alternative, leaving no critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden. The empty schema already communicates this, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description adds no conflicting or confusing parameter information.

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 identifies the tool as explaining how the quote process works for Renovation Room Pros, covering the free project-submission wizard, post-submission steps, and the direct link. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling start_project by specifying that this is for general how-does-it-work questions, not specific project handoffs.

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 states when to use it: for general how-does-it-work questions about the Chicago area, including Northwest Indiana and Southern Wisconsin. It also names the alternative, start_project, and specifies the condition for switching to it—when the user has already described a specific project.

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=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail by noting that answers are fact-checked, drawn from a specific FAQ, and cite their primary source, which helps the agent set user expectations about answer quality and citations.

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. The first sentence front-loads action, scope, and topics; the second adds the citation behavior. It avoids repeating schema or annotation 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?

For a simple read-only Q&A tool with one documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, topic areas, and answer behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and understand what kind of response to expect.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'question' parameter, so the baseline is already strong. The description adds meaningful domain context by enumerating the types of renovation questions the tool can handle, helping the agent decide whether a user's question fits within scope.

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 ('Answer') and resource ('fact-checked FAQ'), and scopes the tool to Chicago-area home-renovation questions with concrete topic examples. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_pro and search_pros, which are about finding professionals.

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 makes the intended context clear: use this tool for renovation questions in the listed FAQ topics, such as permits, contractors, costs, and planning. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the topic scope strongly implies the boundary.

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=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond those by specifying that only 'published member businesses' are returned and that results include trades, service areas, and profile links, giving a clear picture of the tool's read-only, list-returning behavior. 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 compact, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource immediately, then gives examples and a preview of the return content. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name or title.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the query should be, what the tool searches, and what the result contains. Since there is no output schema, the description's mention of 'trades, service areas, and profile links' fulfills the need to communicate the return shape.

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% with a clear description of the 'query' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('plumber', 'kitchen remodel', 'fence installation') and restricting the query context to vetted Chicagoland contractors, helping an agent understand the acceptable query format and intent.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), the exact resource ('The Renovation Room's directory of vetted Chicagoland contractors'), and the search dimensions (trade, service, or company name). It also profiles the returned content, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools get_pro, how_to_submit_project, and renovation_faq.

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 on when to use the tool: when you need to find contractors by trade, service, or company name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the search scope is sufficiently defined that an agent can infer this is the lookup-by-text entry point among the siblings.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool only generates a pre-filled link, the homeowner submits it themselves, and no direct project creation occurs on the agent's side. This clarifies the read-only nature beyond 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then adds a clear usage directive. It is slightly dense but each sentence earns its place and no extraneous content appears.

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 tool with no output schema, the description still makes the return value implicit ('give them this link') and covers the complete user flow. It also includes the use trigger and explains why the tool exists, which is sufficient given the schema's full parameter coverage.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but does not need to—the schema carries the full burden and the baseline of 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 specific action ('Build a personalized link') and the resource ('The Renovation Room's free project-submission form'). It also conveys the intended outcome—homeowner reviews and submits, contractors are alerted—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_pros or renovation_faq.

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 includes an explicit trigger: 'Use after the user describes a real project they want quotes for.' It provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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