sipiteno

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the high-level output (budget range and timeline) without revealing how the estimate is generated, what assumptions are made, or any limitations/caveats. This minimal behavioral disclosure is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key deliverable (budget range and timeline) and earns its place without 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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide sufficient context. It only states what is returned, but does not explain how the estimation works, what inputs affect it, or what constitutes a 'timeline'. The complexity warrants more detail than this minimal statement.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only company_size is described). The tool description mentions 'a country' and 'specific services', covering country and services loosely, but it does not explain the company_size parameter or how any parameter influences the estimate. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but only partially does.

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: 'Get an estimated budget range and timeline for expanding into a country with specific services.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('budget range and timeline'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_competitors or get_country_info.

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 implies when to use the tool (when expanding into a country and needing cost/time estimates) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for basic selection, but lacks exclusions.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not describe the return format, whether results are lists, what fields are included, or any limitations or side effects. The description adds no information beyond the basic lookup action, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of competitor names, details) but does not. It also fails to mention whether parameters are optional or required, or any constraints. The minimal description leaves critical context missing for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 compensates for zero schema coverage by explicitly mapping 'service category' to the service parameter and 'country' to the country parameter. This clarifies the meaning and intended values of both parameters. While it lacks format details or examples, it provides core semantics that the schema omits.

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 purpose: 'Find competitors' with specific qualifiers 'in a specific service category and country combination.' This distinguishes it from siblings like search_services, which likely finds services rather than competitors. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There is no discussion of when to prefer get_competitors over search_services or other siblings.

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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a 'Get' operation but does not state read-only safety, response format, potential errors, or other behaviors. The list of content areas is helpful but does not describe the tool's behavior beyond its purpose.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists key data categories without unnecessary detail. It is concise and well-structured for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

While the tool lacks an output schema, the description lists the types of information returned (costs, talent, tax rates, ease of doing business), giving the agent a reasonable understanding of what to expect. The tool is simple, and the description is adequate for selection and invocation, though it could mention the response format or clarify parameter requiredness.

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% because the 'country' parameter includes examples. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify whether the parameter is required or optional, but the schema already provides adequate guidance.

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 'detailed business climate information' including costs, talent, tax rates, and ease of doing business. This distinguishes it from siblings like estimate_expansion_costs or get_competitors, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as estimate_expansion_costs or search_services. It implies usage when country-level business climate data is needed but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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 only states the action without explaining what happens after submission, whether any confirmation is returned, or if there are side effects (e.g., email notification). This is a significant transparency gap for a request-submission tool.

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, efficiently written sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary verbosity. It front-loads the action and includes useful attributes ('free 30-minute'), making it appropriately sized for a simple form tool, though it omits valuable parameter context.

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 three parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it well. It does not explain what to do with the parameters, expected input formats, or what the response signifies. The tool is simple, but the missing parameter guidance makes it insufficient.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters (name, email, notes). The agent has no guidance on formatting, required fields, or the meaning of each parameter. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 ('Submit') and clearly identifies the resource ('a free 30-minute strategy scoping call'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_competitors and search_services, which are informational rather than action-oriented.

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 the tool should be used when a user wants to request a strategy scoping call, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so usage guidance relies on the obviousness of the action.

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 burden of behavioral context. It discloses that results include cost ranges and timelines, but doesn't mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. As a search tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 having no output schema, the description mentions the key return elements (cost ranges and timelines). For a simple one-parameter search tool, this is sufficient and complete.

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 the parameter, including an example in the parameter description. The tool description doesn't need to add more detail; 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 clearly states the tool searches for consulting services, using the specific verb 'Search' and resource 'consulting services'. It also indicates the output includes cost ranges and timelines, distinguishing it from siblings like get_competitors and get_country_info.

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 clearly conveys the use case: searching for consulting services by query. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or provide exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and no ambiguity arises.

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