NC Wedding Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds that NC market-informed weights allocate across eight categories, but it does not disclose whether the output is dollar amounts, percentages, or a structured breakdown, nor how style or guest count affect results.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler or repetition of schema details. Every word contributes meaning.

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 no per-parameter descriptions, the description leaves the eight categories unnamed, the role of guest_count and style unexplained, and the return shape unknown. It reads more like a title than a complete operational description.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It only clarifies total_budget by saying a total wedding budget is allocated; it says nothing about guest_count or style, even though both are part of the input schema and likely influence the allocation.

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 the specific verb 'Allocate' and clearly identifies the resource: a total wedding budget across eight categories using NC market-informed weights. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on venue costs, vendors, licenses, and directory searches.

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 implies the tool is for whole-budget allocation, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like estimate_nc_venue_cost. An agent must infer the intended scenario from the tool's name and title.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context by stating the tool produces estimates for site fee, F&B, and total cost, but it does not disclose important traits such as whether results are approximate ranges, currency, or based on historical data.

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 filler or redundant phrases. Every clause earns its place by naming both the output categories and the key input dimensions.

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 should clarify what the returned estimate looks like (e.g., number, range, currency, breakdown), but it does not. It also omits assumptions or caveats about the estimation methodology. This is sparser than needed for a four-parameter estimator with no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only repeats the parameter dimensions ('region, guest count, day, and season') without adding meaning beyond the property names. The schema's enums provide value constraints, yet the description does not clarify semantics like units, formats, or interpretation of the 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('NC venue cost') and clearly names the outputs: site fee, food and beverage, and total cost. The description does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like build_nc_wedding_budget, though the name and focus on venue cost make it reasonably distinct.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as build_nc_wedding_budget or search_nc_wedding_directory. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation returns structured details and depends on prior search output, which is useful but still vague about what those details contain or whether results can be empty/stale.

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 sentence that opens with the action and object, then immediately specifies the input source. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent can expect. 'Structured details' is minimally informative but does not define the fields, the scope of vendor categories, or any edge cases. Given the simple two-parameter read operation, the gap is not severe, but more output context would help.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that both parameters are taken directly from search_nc_wedding_directory, preventing an agent from guessing or fabricating slugs. The category enum is already available in the schema, so ambiguity there is low.

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 specifies a verb ('Get'), a resource ('structured details for one venue or vendor'), and the exact input provenance ('using the category and slug returned by search_nc_wedding_directory'). It distinguishes this tool from the search sibling by making it a single-item detail fetcher versus a directory 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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: this tool should be called after search_nc_wedding_directory, using the category and slug that search returns. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the search prerequisite, but the prerequisite is strong enough to guide correct usage.

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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds geographic scoping but gives no detail about what data is returned, whether results are limited, or what 'highlighted' means, so extra behavioral context is minimal.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the main action and object. The word 'highlighted' is unclear and arguably wastes a slot, but overall the description is appropriately compact.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose and input. However, since there is no output schema, the description should more clearly state what the agent will receive back, such as office details and rule summaries, to make the tool fully self-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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for explaining county_or_city. It usefully indicates that county, city, or region names are acceptable inputs. It still lacks examples or format constraints, but for a single simple parameter this is meaningful compensation.

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 that the tool finds an NC Register of Deeds office and marriage-license rules based on a location, which distinguishes it from the sibling wedding-vendor and budget tools. However, 'highlighted' is vague, and the exact deliverable (office address, contact info, application rules) is not fully pinned down.

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 phrase 'by county, city, or region' implies the intended input and lookup use case. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool over search_nc_wedding_directory or other siblings, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternatives.

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 beyond the minimal readOnly/destructive annotations by disclosing that it persists a contact-interest record, returns only public contact information, and does not send or forward messages. This prevents the common false assumption that the tool delivers the inquiry on the agent's behalf.

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 with no filler; the primary effect and the critical limitation are both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The return artifact is described (public email and inquiry/mailto URL), which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. However, with seven parameters and low schema coverage, the description should also clarify which inputs shape the inquiry and how the target listing is addressed.

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 only 29%, and the description does not explain how slug/category identify the listing or how message/event_date/guest_count/wedding_location map to the prepared inquiry. The phrase 'prepared wedding inquiry' hints at a relationship but provides no concrete parameter-level guidance.

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 concrete action ('Record high-intent contact interest') plus the delivered outcome (public email and a prepared wedding inquiry). It clearly differentiates from sibling read/search tools by emphasizing this tool creates a contact-interest record rather than just looking up information.

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?

Clearly tells the agent that the tool does not forward or deliver the message and that the returned email or mailto URL must be used for actual contact. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a direct when-to-use versus search_vendor decision, so one point is lost.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating what the tool returns: 'canonical listing URLs and structured planning details.' This gives the agent a concrete expectation of output without contradicting the 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The scope is front-loaded ('Search nearly 4,000...'), and the return behavior is stated immediately afterward. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the resource, search dimensions, and return type. It could add pagination semantics or explicit sibling differentiation, but the annotations plus the return-value sentence cover most of what an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that city, category, and query are search dimensions and interprets query as 'free text,' but it says nothing about limit or offset and does not elaborate on category enum values. It partially compensates but leaves part of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 ('search'), a concrete resource ('North Carolina wedding venues and vendors'), and a scope ('nearly 4,000'). It clearly conveys a directory-listing function, and the phrase 'canonical listing URLs' helps separate it from the budget/legal siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_nc_wedding_vendor.

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 phrase 'by category, city, or free text' implies the intended search scenarios, and the sibling names suggest alternatives for budget, cost, licenses, and contact requests. However, the description never states when to prefer this tool over get_nc_wedding_vendor or request_vendor_contact, nor does it give exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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