JustFix Estimator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the context that it applies to bookings, but does not disclose additional behavior such as return format or variability. It meets the minimum for adding value 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core function first, then the usage scenario, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema) and existing annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what and when, but could slightly improve by explicitly noting that the return value is the fee amount (though implied).

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter details since there are none, and the schema is empty. No additional parameter semantics needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'call-out fee' that applies to bookings. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list_services, service-estimate-card) by specifying the exact query context.

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: 'when the customer asks about the call-out fee, booking fee, or upfront cost for a booking'. It provides clear context but does not mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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 destructiveHint=false, aligning with the read-only 'Get a list' operation. The description adds scope (all services) but does not mention return format or pagination; acceptable for a zero-param tool but no extra behavioral depth.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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, no-output-schema tool with safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose and usage clearly, leaving no critical gaps for the agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has no properties, so parameter documentation is not needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not require additional parameter clarification.

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 'Get a list of all services we provide' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like call_out_fee and service-estimate-card by focusing on the service listing itself.

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 usage context: 'Use when the customer asks what services are available, what you can book, or similar.' It lacks when-not or alternative comparisons, but the trigger scenarios are clearly identified.

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 are uninformative (all false), so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It fails to disclose side effects, return values, or the nature of the 'external action link'. There is no contradiction, but the description adds no meaningful behavioral context.

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 short sentence, making it concise. However, it is so under-specified that it sacrifices clarity, providing only a vague noun phrase rather than an actionable definition. It is concise but not effectively informative.

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 and a minimal description, the tool's behavior and return structure are completely unexplained. The agent cannot infer what the tool will produce, what the 'external action link' refers to, or how to handle the result. The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but that baseline is sufficient given the high schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource as a 'service estimate summary card' and mentions an 'external action link', giving a general sense of the tool's output. However, it lacks a clear action verb (e.g., 'creates', 'displays', 'returns') and does not differentiate it from sibling tools beyond a generic card representation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus list_services or call_out_fee. There are no trigger conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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