The Septic Guide

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds that the content comes from a named third-party site (thesepticguide.com) and that results include a short answer, cost tables, and cited sources. That gives the agent a sense of provenance and shape without an output schema. It still doesn't note staleness, currency, or failure behavior for unknown topics.

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 resource and coverage list, followed by the zero-argument affordance. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies provenance, content shape, and the no-argument fallback — enough to invoke correctly. The only gap is error/empty-result behavior, which is low-stakes here.

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 gives an example slug, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by documenting the omission behavior (no topic returns a topic list), which the schema does not state. It doesn't clarify slug normalization or what happens on a miss.

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 (get) and resource (septic cost guidance) and enumerates the covered subtopics (pumping, inspection, repair, installation, drain field, tank replacement, aerobic systems). Nothing overlaps with the sibling tools get_state_licensing, list_states, or search_septic_companies, so an agent can route unambiguously.

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?

"Call with no topic to list topics" gives an explicit zero-argument behavior that the schema cannot express, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set is clearly disjoint in domain, so the omission is minor.

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 openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful provenance: results include a third-party site's Q&A and an external license lookup link, which signals web/external content. It stops short of saying what happens for an unrecognized state or how fresh the licensing data is.

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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description adequately previews the return payload (agency, official link, Q&A). Minor gaps remain around not-found handling and data currency, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'state' parameter that already documents accepting a name or 2-letter code. The description only echoes the U.S.-state scope, adding no format, normalization, or error-handling detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States precisely what the tool returns: the licensing authority for septic installers/pumpers in a U.S. state, the agency's official lookup link, and licensing Q&A from thesepticguide.com. That scope clearly separates it from list_states (enumeration) and search_septic_companies (company 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?

Usage is only implied by the stated output; there is no explicit guidance such as 'call this after list_states to resolve a state' or what to do when the state is unknown. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the agent must infer when this beats search_septic_companies.

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 openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral scope: it returns states that have a licensing page and/or directory page, with links. It does not contradict the annotations and adds context beyond 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, coverage condition, and return characteristic without wasted wording.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is listed and that links are included. A minor gap remains around exact return structure, but the tool’s simplicity and annotations reduce that need.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The empty schema matches the tool’s no-input nature, and the description correctly implies no filtering inputs.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "List the U.S. states" with a clear coverage condition and links. It is understandable without the schema, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as get_state_licensing.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus get_state_licensing or search_septic_companies. Usage is only implied by the tool name and coverage scope, with no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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 the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real value on top: it names the data source, discloses that results carry state license records with agency verify links, and clarifies that 'license match' is a filter path. It does not mention the default/max result cap (limit), which would be useful for an open-world search.

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, zero filler: the first defines scope and filters, the second defines the return payload. Nothing is repeated from the title and nothing could be cut without losing 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 seven parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description covers both input scoping and output shape (license records, verify link, phone, website), which is the main gap it needs to fill. Only the result-limit/pagination behavior is left unaddressed.

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 per-parameter descriptions for zip, city, county, state, service, and licensed_only, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description touches on the filter set but adds no format or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides — the 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (septic companies listed on thesepticguide.com) plus the scoping dimension (a state) and the return content. The resource is distinct from the sibling tools (get_cost_guide, get_state_licensing, list_states), though no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 enumerated filters imply the usage contexts (find contractors by city, county, ZIP, service, or license match), but there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance and no statement about when to prefer get_state_licensing or get_cost_guide instead.

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