Alphamotion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose what comes back: a summary, the page to read, and the three published prices. It does not state that the operation is read-only and side-effect free, nor anything about ordering or freshness of the catalog, so behavioral coverage is partial rather than 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 front-loaded sentence naming the publisher, domain, and the service areas, with no filler. The category enumeration is longish but each item conveys scope the agent cannot get elsewhere.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does: summary text, page URL, and three prices. Minor gaps remain (pricing unit, whether entries are ordered), but for a zero-parameter listing tool this is close to 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter prose and instead spends its words on the returned content.

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 (list the services Alphamotion publishes) and enumerates the service categories covered, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling recommend_services, leaving the agent to infer which one fits a discovery-vs-recommendation need.

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: an agent can infer this is the catalog-listing tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of recommend_services as the alternative for getting a tailored recommendation. The zero-parameter signature keeps misuse risk low, but the guidance 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavior: only three services have published prices, the rest are quoted per work — that shapes how results should be presented. It does not describe result count, matching behavior, or what 'their pages' actually contains, and never explicitly confirms this is a non-mutating lookup.

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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. Minor ambiguity remains in 'with their pages,' which is never unpacked, 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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what comes back at a high level, and the pricing caveat that affects how results are communicated. The return structure ('best matches with their pages') and sibling differentiation are the only real gaps.

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 there is only one parameter, so the baseline is already high. The description still adds value by enumerating representative need phrasings (website, ecommerce store, marketing, marketplace management, India operations), which guides free-text phrasing for an unconstrained string parameter.

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: 'Recommend the Alphamotion services that fit a business need,' and enumerates concrete need categories (website, ecommerce, marketing, marketplace, India operations). It never names list_services or explains the distinction, but the recommend-vs-list split is inferable from 'fit a business need' and 'best matches.'

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 through example needs rather than stated as when-to-use guidance; there is no explicit 'use this instead of list_services when...' and no exclusions. An agent can guess this is the need-driven matching path, but it must infer that from the framing.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that details are shared externally with Alphamotion, that explicit user consent is required, and that 'nothing is booked, priced or agreed' — an important side-effect boundary. It still omits what happens after submission (confirmation, response shape, follow-up timing).

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: purpose first, consent gate second, non-commitment caveat third. No filler, and the ordering matches the decision sequence an agent would follow.

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 purpose, consent gating, and the non-binding nature well, and no output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. However, for a 7-parameter PII-collecting tool with 43% schema coverage, the missing field-level guidance and the absent link to list_services leave an agent under-informed about what to collect.

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 only 43%, so the description should compensate — but it only reinforces user_consented (already documented in the schema) and vaguely references 'these details'. The four undocumented fields (name, email, phone, company) get no guidance, and the service param's relationship to list_services is absent from the description.

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 outcome: 'Ask Alphamotion to get in touch on the user's behalf' — an agent can tell this is a contact/lead-request action, not a listing or recommendation tool. It doesn't explicitly name list_services or recommend_services, so sibling routing is only implied (likely the final step of that flow).

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 concrete precondition — 'Only use this when the user has agreed to share these details' — which is exactly the gate an agent needs before transmitting PII. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what to do if consent is absent, so not a full 5.

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