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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is 'structured details' and that it addresses exactly one venue or vendor, which is mildly useful, but it does not disclose behaviors like not-found handling or error conditions.

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 unnecessary words. It states the operation, the target resource, and the parameter source efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter read-only fetch tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential input-origin guidance and clarifies the scope of the result. It stops short of describing the exact output shape or failure behavior, which would make it fully complete.

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 category and slug are values returned by search_nc_wedding_directory, which gives agents the source and relationship of the parameters. However, it does not explain the meaning of slug beyond that or define category's role more deeply.

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') with a clear resource ('structured details for one venue or vendor') and ties the operation to identifiers from the sibling search tool. This clearly distinguishes it from search_nc_wedding_directory, which returns the directory listing rather than individual details.

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 that category and slug should come from search_nc_wedding_directory, providing clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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?

The description transparently discloses the side effect of recording interest and explicitly notes that no message is forwarded or delivered, which is important behavioral context not present in the annotations. It could go further by mentioning persistence or data retention, but it covers the main effects.

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, front-loads the primary action and result, and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It gives the outcome and a key caveat, but does not explain how inputs relate to the output, which fields are expected, or what the prepared inquiry contains.

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 only 29% schema coverage and no parameter-level explanation in the description, the agent gets little guidance on how slug, message, event_date, guest_count, or wedding_location should be used. The phrase 'prepared wedding inquiry' hints at their purpose but does not clarify requirements or format.

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 identifies the action ('Record high-intent contact interest'), the target resource (vendor/venue contact), and the expected outcome (public email and prepared inquiry). It also distinguishes itself by stating it does not forward or deliver the message.

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 explains the tool's behavior and limitation, but it does not explicitly state when an agent should choose this tool over siblings like search_nc_wedding_directory or get_nc_wedding_vendor. The usage context is implied 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 already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safe-read profile is established. The description adds return-value context ('canonical listing URLs and structured planning details'), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or what 'structured planning details' means. No contradiction with 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 resource, search dimensions, and output type are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 core purpose and return type are covered, but with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves gaps: whether filters can be combined, whether an unfiltered search is allowed, and pagination semantics are all implicit. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, covering city and query. The description restates those axes and adds 'category' but provides no extra semantics for limit or offset, which also lack schema descriptions. The low coverage is not adequately compensated.

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 and resource: 'Search nearly 4,000 North Carolina wedding venues and vendors' by category, city, or free text. It clearly distinguishes this directory-search tool from siblings like get_nc_wedding_vendor, which implies a single-vendor 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: finding venues/vendors across a broad directory by multiple search dimensions. It does not explicitly call out when to prefer sibling tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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