stoop

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 mentions 'authenticated user' (implying auth needs) and 'manage... view or update' (implying read/write capabilities), but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether updates are reversible), rate limits, or response format. For a mutation-capable tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. It uses two sentences efficiently: one for the main action and one for examples. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating view vs. update contexts).

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 (dual get/update functionality, 2 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values for 'get', error handling, field constraints for 'update', or how authentication works. For a tool with mutation capability and no structured support, more context is needed.

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 both parameters (action and fields). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies 'view' corresponds to 'get' and 'update' to 'update', and lists example fields (square footage, year built, systems installed), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Manage the authenticated user's home profile — view or update property details like square footage, year built, and systems installed.' It specifies the verb ('manage'), resource ('authenticated user's home profile'), and scope ('property details'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like job_history or provider_profile. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond implying a home-specific focus.

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. It mentions 'view or update' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate if this is for personal home data versus other property types, or when to use it over other profile-related tools. This leaves usage context largely implied.

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 full burden. It states it retrieves data for the 'authenticated user', implying it requires authentication, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose and optional feature without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication needs, response structure) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, more context is needed.

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 fully documents both parameters (limit and filter_trade). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optionally filtered by trade category', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'past service requests and completed jobs' for the authenticated user, with optional filtering. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'home_profile' or 'provider_profile', but the focus on job history is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 like 'service_search' or other sibling tools. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for usage, leaving the agent to infer context.

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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what happens if the provider_id is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from data details, but there's minimal waste.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what data is returned. However, it doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or response format, which would be helpful given the lack of structured metadata.

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%, with the single parameter 'provider_id' well-documented in the schema as 'Unique identifier of the provider to look up'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed profile information for a specific service provider'), specifying what data is retrieved ('license status, reviews, and service history'). It distinguishes from 'home_profile' by focusing on service providers rather than homes, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'job_history' or 'service_search' which might also involve provider 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'service_search' (which might find providers) or 'job_history' (which might include provider history). The description implies usage when detailed provider info is needed, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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 mentions that results are 'ranked' and include 'ratings, pricing, and contact info', which adds some context beyond basic search functionality. However, it lacks critical details such as data sources, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated).

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids redundancy, making every word count.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., data freshness, error handling) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial for an agent.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by hinting at the 'query' parameter's purpose ('description of the service needed') and the 'location' default ('Defaults to Miami'), but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search for') and resources ('licensed home service providers'), explicitly listing the service categories (HVAC, plumbing, electrical) and specifying the scope ('near a location'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'home_profile' or 'job_history' by focusing on provider search rather than profile viewing or history tracking.

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 its siblings (e.g., 'home_profile' or 'provider_profile'), nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. It implies usage for finding providers but lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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