Sauna Guide Quotes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral context: no data storage, no email sending, no provider selection, no contact sharing. This helps set expectations beyond the annotation flags, though it does not describe the validation output 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only clarification is concise and useful.

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 13 parameters, the description relies appropriately on the rich input schema and output schema. It communicates the essential selection information: validation, missing-detail identification, and no side effects. The only minor gap is not explicitly tying it to the submit workflow, but that is not critically 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%, so all 13 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description names a specific verb ('validate'), a specific resource ('a draft sauna project request'), and the intended outcome ('identify missing details'). It also clearly distinguishes itself from the submit sibling by stating it is read-only and does not send email or select a provider.

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 clearly frames this as a pre-submission validation step and explicitly lists what it does not do, which helps an agent avoid using it for final submission. However, it does not explicitly name submit_sauna_quote_request as the alternative or state 'use before submitting', so the routing guidance is slightly implicit.

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 description adds useful side-effect context beyond annotations: it stores a request, sends confirmation/internal emails, and explicitly excludes newsletter subscription and provider contact sharing. However, it does not elaborate on the destructiveHint=true annotation, such as whether the prepared request is consumed or whether submission is irreversible.

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 sentences with no filler: function first, then the call conditions, then the privacy guarantees. Every sentence carries distinct 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 15-parameter tool with a full schema and output schema, the description covers the essential call sequence and consent requirement. The only notable gap is the meaning of destructiveHint=true, which is left to the annotation without explanation.

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 each parameter (including confirmRequest and requestId) is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so 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 names a specific action ('Store a complete sauna project request') and its side effects ('send confirmation and internal notification emails'). It also situates the tool relative to its only sibling ('after prepare_sauna_quote_request'), so an agent can tell submit from prepare.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions: call only after prepare_sauna_quote_request and only after the user explicitly approves submission. This clearly tells an agent when the tool is appropriate and when it is premature.

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