ServiceWindow — SWFL Food Truck Marketplace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a retrieval operation ('get'), but does not elaborate on return format, error behavior, authentication needs, or any other side effects. The term 'full details' is vague and could be more informative.

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 immediately states the action and includes a useful usage pointer. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or empty phrasing.

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 being a simple one-parameter tool, the description lacks an output schema and does not describe the content of 'full details.' An agent would not know what fields to expect in the response. The purpose and usage are clear, but the lack of return-value information makes it incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 parameter 'id' is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal value by calling it a 'profile ID' and referencing search_trucks, which mirrors the schema's own description. This meets the baseline without adding significant extra 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 the tool's function: getting full details on a specific verified food truck by profile ID. It uses a specific verb/resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_trucks (search) and list_marketplace (list) by being a direct ID lookup.

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 explicitly says 'Use after search_trucks to get more detail on a specific result,' which gives clear context on when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 transparency burden. It adds the 'active' filter and explains the domain meaning of each board, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or any side-effect relevant traits. For a read-only browse tool, this level is adequate but not extensive.

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 ('Browse active listings') and then compactly lists all seven boards. Each board's explanation is necessary and the structure is efficient, though the long list makes it slightly dense.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the primary functionality and all board options. It does not explicitly state the return format or pagination, but the limit parameter in the schema addresses this. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the 'board' parameter by explaining each enum value's real-world meaning, which goes beyond the schema's bare enum. City and limit are already self-explanatory in the schema, so the extra board detail justifies a score above baseline.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Browse active listings on the ServiceWindow marketplace') and enumerates seven distinct board types with clear purposes. This differs sharply from sibling tools get_truck and search_trucks, making its scope 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 board descriptions strongly imply when each board would be useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions. An agent can infer that this tool is for browsing marketplace listings rather than fetching a specific truck or searching trucks, but the guidance remains implicit.

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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It does so by specifying the return content ('Returns truck profiles including name, cuisine, city, bio, and a direct booking URL'), verifying operator status ('All returned trucks are verified operators'), and stating coverage ('21 cities across Lee, Collier, Sarasota, Charlotte, and Hendry counties'). It omits details like pagination or ordering, but the disclosed behavior is substantial and goes beyond a bare operation.

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 compact yet comprehensive, front-loading the primary action and then providing filters, return information, coverage, and verification status in a logical sequence. Every sentence carries meaningful content, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 effectively covers purpose, filter criteria, return fields, geographic scope, and verification status, which is robust for a search tool with a well-documented schema. It lacks some minor behavioral details like result ordering or limit handling, but these are either inferred or covered by the schema. The absence of an output schema makes the described return fields especially valuable.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters, including examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only minimally reinforces that filtering is by type, city, or keyword, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already explains. It maintains a baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Search verified food truck operators on the ServiceWindow marketplace in Southwest Florida (SWFL).' The verb 'search' is specific, the resource is clearly defined, and the geographic scope is explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_truck, list_marketplace) by focusing on multi-criteria search rather than single-truck retrieval or marketplace listing.

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 usage through the filter options ('Filter by cuisine type, city, or keyword') and provides context about the 21-city coverage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_truck or list_marketplace, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is present but implicit.

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