Enrichment.Kids Activity Marketplace

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context by enumerating the exact fields returned (description, provider, sessions, prices, capacity, etc.) and disclosing that registration/payment happen externally via the share_url. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then provides a detailed list of return contents. Every listed item adds value and the length is justified by the tool's rich output. No fluff.

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 must explain return values, and it does so comprehensively for both activity-level and session-level details, including the external registration flow. The single parameter is fully documented via the schema, making the description complete for this tool.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters and already describes slug as the URL slug returned by search_activities. The description only repeats 'identified by its slug' without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('full details for one enrichment activity') with a clear identifier ('slug'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_activities (which lists activities) and get_provider_info (which gets provider info) by focusing on detailed per-activity retrieval.

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 a workflow: the slug is returned by search_activities, and this tool follows to retrieve full details. This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just 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 mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what is returned (profile and active listings) and the two lookup paths, 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 concise, front-loaded sentences convey purpose and usage without any filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 lookup tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and how to invoke it. It identifies input provenance and result scope, making it complete for its 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?

Schema descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining the relational source of organization_id and the alternative provider_name lookup with optional narrowing by city and state.

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 retrieves profile and active listings for an enrichment activity provider, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_activities and get_activity_details by focusing on provider-level data.

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 explicit lookup guidance: use organization_id from search_activities results, or fall back to provider_name with optional city/state narrowing. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_activity_details, but the context and sibling names make the intended usage clear.

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 meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: results are paginated, ordered by relevance, and 'not influenced by paid placement'. It also discloses the return field structure, which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: what it searches, result contents, ordering policy, and slug linkage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema), the description covers search criteria, pagination, result fields, ordering, and the relationship to get_activity_details. It provides a complete mental model for selecting and invoking the tool without relying on an 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully described. The description adds value by grouping parameters into a coherent query model (keyword, location via city/state or radius, age, date range, category), clarifying that city/state and latitude/longitude are alternative location modes. This conceptual framing goes beyond individual schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Searches children's enrichment activities (camps, classes, after-school programs) in the United States' with specific filter criteria. It differentiates from siblings by explaining that the slug returned is 'the identifier accepted by get_activity_details', signaling a search-to-detail relationship.

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 usage context through its search criteria and result fields, making clear this is the tool for discovering activities. It hints at the alternative get_activity_details by mentioning the slug relationship, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide direct alternative guidance.

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