Start a FREE customs.dog account for a NEW user by email and send them a magic sign-in link (no password). Use this to onboard someone who wants to store and track their pet's travel documents after you've shown them their border requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: free account, new user only, magic link (no password). However, it omits details like rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the user already exists.
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-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. No wasted text.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. However, it lacks parameter descriptions and does not mention return values or side effects, leaving minor 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?
The description does not mention the parameters at all, even though schema description coverage is 0%. It only implies 'by email' but does not describe the optional 'name' parameter or provide any formatting hints beyond what the schema regex offers.
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 the tool starts a free account for a NEW user via email, sending a magic sign-in link. It specifies the resource (customs.dog account), action (start signup), and distinguishes from sibling tools like customs_check_rules or customs_list_documents by focusing on onboarding.
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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to onboard someone after you've shown them their border requirements.' It implies not to use for existing users or before requirements are shown, though it could be more explicit about when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of pet travel: rules checking, readiness validation, document listing, pet listing, dashboard overview, session prep, signup, and upcoming trips. No overlap in purpose.
All tools start with 'customs_' prefix and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_rules, list_pets, start_signup), providing a predictable and clear naming convention.
8 tools cover the core workflows for pet border requirements and document management without being excessive. The scope feels well-calibrated for the domain.
The set covers key operations: rule checking, readiness, document listing, and signup. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for adding or updating pets or documents after account creation, but core informational queries are fully covered.