Matchmaker Frankfurt

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by declaring side-effect guarantees ('versendet nichts'), a privacy guarantee ('Gibt keine Kontaktdaten zurück'), and a non-obvious anti-pattern warning about resending during delivery_unknown/sending states. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent could not derive from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what it checks, what it does not do, and the failure-mode rule. The scope statement is front-loaded before the caveats.

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-parameter read-only status check with no output schema, the description covers purpose, absence of side effects, and status-specific handling. It does not enumerate the possible status values an agent might receive, which would be the remaining useful addition.

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 single token parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its opaque nature and regex constraint. The description ('mit seinem Token') adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 a specific verb and resource ('Prüft den Status eines vorhandenen Entwurfs oder Versands'), and implicitly separates itself from the submit/prepare siblings by noting it sends nothing. It never names a sibling tool outright, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 a clear operational rule for an edge case ('Bei delivery_unknown oder sending nicht erneut senden'), which tells the agent what to do with specific results. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_shooting_information or prepare_shooting_inquiry, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds a useful nuance with 'Kein Versand' (nothing is dispatched/submitted), clarifying this call has no side effects, but says nothing about freshness of pricing or return format.

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 enumerates the returned content and closes with the no-side-effect qualifier. Dense and waste-free, though the trailing 'Kein Versand' is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous without the annotations.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does list the returned categories (packages, prices, services, prerequisites). Only the absence of any output/pagination detail keeps it from a 5.

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; baseline 4 applies. No parameter syntax is needed or missing.

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 names the concrete resource being retrieved — packages, prices, services and prerequisites for a dating photo shoot inquiry in Frankfurt — which is far more than a restatement of the tool name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools (prepare/submit_shooting_inquiry, get_inquiry_status), 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: pitching the content as material for a 'unverbindliche' (non-binding) inquiry signals this is the read-before-you-act step. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to prepare_shooting_inquiry as the next tool, so it is only an implicit guide.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses a 30-minute TTL on the draft, that no email is dispatched (a real side-effect boundary for a non-readOnly tool), and that the return payload is a summary plus a confirmation token. The annotations only carry the generic safety flags, so this added context is substantive.

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 short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the side-effect constraint, then the required user-facing step. Every sentence earns its place and the core action is front-loaded.

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 still names the return contents (summary + confirmation token), the TTL, and the consent workflow the agent must follow. Combined with 100% schema coverage, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% with 6 well-documented parameters, so the schema already carries the field semantics (including the package enum and the optional message guidance). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Erstellt einen ... Entwurf einer unverbindlichen Anfrage') and immediately contrasts itself with the sending step via 'Kein Mailversand', which is exactly what distinguishes it from submit_shooting_inquiry. An agent can tell it is the draft/preparation step without opening any 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?

Gives a clear operating context and ordering constraint: the draft is valid 30 minutes and the summary must be shown before asking for explicit consent, implying the submit step comes after. It does not explicitly name submit_shooting_inquiry as the follow-up tool, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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 declare idempotentHint=true but not why; the description explains the semantics ('Wiederholungen desselben Entwurfs senden keine zweite E-Mail'). It also discloses the outbound side effects (email to a third party plus an acknowledgment to the user-supplied address) and the consent gate, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: recipient/effect, precondition, change handling, negative scope, idempotency. A 'SENDEN:' prefix front-loads the action, and no sentence is redundant.

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, yet the description covers the side effects an agent needs to know (two outward emails, idempotency, no booking) and the consent requirement. Given only two fully documented parameters, nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (user_confirmed, confirmation_token) are already fully documented in the schema, including the token pattern and the prohibition on embedding contact data. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, 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?

The description names a specific verb and effect chain: it sends exactly the prepared draft to Mark Olenberg and triggers a receipt confirmation to the given email. It explicitly distinguishes itself from prepare_shooting_inquiry (draft creation) and from booking tools by stating 'Keine Buchung oder Terminreservierung'.

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?

It states a hard precondition ('NUR nach vollständiger Vorschau und ausdrücklicher Zustimmung'), the correct alternative when content changed ('Bei Änderungen zuerst neuen Entwurf erstellen'), and what the tool must not be used for (booking/reservations). Nothing about when to invoke or avoid it is left to inference.

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