OKC Custom Home & Remodel Readiness Planner | Cosmopolitan Company

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the data is 'approved public' and enumerates the returned fields, signaling a read-only lookup. It does not cover auth expectations, data freshness, or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter getter that is an acceptable baseline.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the field list is scannable and easy to parse. Every part of the description 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema business-info tool, the description fully covers what the agent will receive: name, website, phone, email, address, description, and service areas. No additional context is necessary for correct selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist; it instead helpfuly lists the fields the agent can expect in the response.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the exact resource: approved public business information for Cosmopolitan Company, followed by an explicit field list. This clearly differentiates it from the readiness-planner sibling tools.

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 use case is implied: call this tool when you need Cosmopolitan Company's public business details. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when to avoid it; the gap is minor because there are no parameters and the siblings are unrelated.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns metadata and lists the covered topics, which accurately conveys a non-mutating, read-only behavior. It does not discuss response format or potential caveats, but for a simple metadata lookup the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then uses a compact list to convey the full scope of the returned metadata. Every phrase adds useful information, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description needs to explain what the tool returns, and it does so comprehensively by enumerating purpose, sections, pathways, dimensions, completion time, and disclaimer. It is slightly brief about the actual structure or format of the metadata, but the content inventory is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully captures the input surface and there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 'Returns' with the resource 'metadata describing the readiness planner' and then enumerates exactly what that metadata includes. This clearly distinguishes get_readiness_planner_meta from run_readiness_planner and get_business_info by focusing on descriptive metadata rather than execution or general business 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?

The description implies this tool is for learning about the readiness planner before or without running it, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus run_readiness_planner or get_business_info. There is no direct usage guidance or exclusion, so the agent must infer the intended use from the name and content.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the output is 'educational, illustrative planning output only' and lists what the tool does not produce, which is valuable for setting expectations. However, it does not describe whether the tool persists data, the accuracy of answers, required question coverage, or what happens if the caller supplies partial answers, even though the schema says 'any subset'.

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 first sentence clearly states the function and output, and the second sentence bundles important disclaimers. The enumeration of report sections is somewhat long but valuable because it tells the agent what the returned brief will contain. No redundant phrases or filler.

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 24 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job of describing both inputs and output format. It is not fully complete because it does not describe error or fallback behavior for partial inputs, nor does it explicitly state the relationship to get_readiness_planner_meta (though the input schema points there). Overall, an agent can invoke this tool with reasonable confidence.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 24 parameters individually. The description adds the overall semantics of 'normalized assessment answers' and the mapping to the readiness brief, but it does not enumerate or explain accepted value formats beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Evaluates'), a specific resource ('custom-home or major-remodel project'), and a concrete deliverable ('personalized Project Readiness Brief'). It also enumerates the report's sections, which differentiates it from the sibling metadata tool.

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 clarifies that the input is 'normalized assessment answers (q1-q24)' and that the output is educational planning output, not a quote or binding estimate. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_readiness_planner_meta, but the schema description's pointer to get_readiness_planner_meta for accepted values partially covers that routing. A clearer when-to-use comparison would push this to 5.

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