BuilderVet — NSW builder licence & risk history

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds value by disclosing data sources ('official public registers, archived longitudinally by BuilderVet') and the nature of computed risk signals. 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?

The description is packed with information but remains readable. It front-loads the core purpose and lists specifics. Minor opportunity to split the long second sentence, but overall efficient.

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 single parameter, readOnlyHint, and no output schema, the description compensates well by detailing the return fields (licence info, ASIC status, disciplinary count, risk signals). All key aspects are covered for a tool of this 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 coverage is 100% (one parameter described). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by providing a real-world example ('acme-building-pty-ltd-1a2b'), the source of the slug ('from search_builders'), and clarifying that it identifies a single builder.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Get') and the resource ('factual risk profile for one builder'), enumerating specific data fields (licence, ASIC, disciplinary record, risk signals). It distinguishes from siblings like search_builders and get_builder_timeline by focusing on a single builder's risk profile.

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 usage examples ('is <builder> licensed?', 'safe to sign a contract?'), advises to obtain slug from search_builders first, and provides a concrete slug example. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives to siblings, but the context is sufficient.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details the event structure (severity, source register, deleted flag), the limit of 50 events, and the importance of the deletion flag. This adds significant behavioral context, such as the archival nature of some records.

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then detailing event types and attributes, providing usage instructions, and ending with a concrete example. Every sentence adds value 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?

The description explains the return structure, event limit, and key attributes, compensating for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not address error handling or pagination for older events, which would improve completeness.

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 only parameter 'slug' is fully described in the schema, and the description supplements it with an example value and its origin from search_builders. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds contextual meaning.

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 it retrieves a dated event timeline for a builder by slug, listing specific event types (licence status changes, deregistration, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_builders and get_builder_risk, which have different purposes.

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 what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_builder_risk. It provides an example and indicates when to cite the deletion flag, but lacks general usage guidance.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true; the description adds that search is loose, requires minimum 2 characters, and what the output contains (licence status, slug). No contradictions.

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?

Concise yet comprehensive: describes purpose, provides example, usage tips, and links to sibling tools. No unnecessary sentences.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and how to use the output (slug) with other tools. Covers all 2 parameters adequately.

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% but description adds value by explaining query parameter usage (e.g., try different names) and postcode as an optional NSW filter, plus the minLength constraint.

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 searches for builders by name with optional postcode filtering, and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it returns slugs for get_builder_risk and get_builder_timeline.

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 guidance on when to use (searching builders), includes an example, advises trying both trading and legal names, and explains that the output slug feeds into related tools.

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