Cabana Pool Service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds a useful data-minimization note ('No address or personal data'), but leaves the actual outcome undisclosed — whether it returns a boolean, a coverage tier, or a service-area list — and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 short sentences with the capability front-loaded and the privacy constraint second; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema, the description should say what a coverage check returns (positive/negative result, service tier, or area detail), and it does not, leaving the agent guessing about the response shape.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does specify 'five-digit US ZIP code', which explains the meaning and format of the single 'zip' parameter consistent with the ^[0-9]{5}$ pattern. It adds no note about leading zeros or non-US inputs, but the essential semantics are present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check Cabana pool-service coverage') plus the scoping input ('five-digit US ZIP code'), which is enough to tell it apart from estimate_pool_service (cost) and list_services (catalog). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need to know whether Cabana serves a given ZIP. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if coverage fails, and no pointer to estimate_pool_service as the logical next step, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add business context — it does so by declaring the output is indicative (approximate) USD pricing and that no booking or lead side effect occurs. It stops short of saying whether out-of-area zips error out or how prices are banded.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the price statement and the no-booking caveat both earn their place. The billing-cadence sentence is slightly cryptic out of context but still 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?

With no output schema, the agent should know what an estimate looks like (single number, range, currency formatting) and whether modifiers change it materially; the description only says 'indicative USD price.' For a three-parameter pricing tool with zero schema documentation, more guidance was warranted.

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 carries full burden, yet it only glancingly alludes to serviceId semantics via 'Monthly billing differs from weekly visits.' The zip parameter and the five-value modifiers enum (spa, trees, large-pool, fountain) that clearly alter the estimate are given no meaning at all.

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 and resource: get an indicative USD price for one pool or spa. An agent can distinguish this from check_service_area (eligibility) and list_services (catalog), though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the boundary.

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 clarifies the tool is advisory only ('No booking or lead is created'), which implies pre-booking usage, but never states when to prefer it over check_service_area, or whether area verification must happen first. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the content of the result set (services, billing periods, visit frequencies, modifiers), which is the main behavioral detail an agent needs and is not covered by any 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every element enumerates a distinct returned category. Nothing is redundant or misplaced.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference-listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the crucial missing piece: what the response contains. It stops short of noting that results are static reference data or how to use them downstream, but it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, unfiltered listing.

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 ('List') with a specific resource ('supported pool services') and enumerates the associated reference data returned: billing periods, visit frequencies, and allowed modifiers. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_service_area and estimate_pool_service, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery/lookup call to run before estimating or checking availability, but the description never states when to call it or how it relates to the sibling tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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