Who Do I Call For? — Emergency Home-Service Router

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return format (structured answer plus markdown guide) and the dependency on other tools for parameter values, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and output, then give practical parameter guidance. No wasted words, every sentence 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?

Despite not detailing the output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's content and usage context. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be fully explained, and the guidance on parameter sourcing makes the description complete for this simple read tool.

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 provides 100% parameter descriptions with examples. The description adds extra meaning by explicitly instructing to use values from route_emergency or list_scenarios, which helps the agent source valid inputs and understand the relationship between tools.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one situation') with clear output content ('structured answer', 'complete step-by-step guide'). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing route_emergency and list_scenarios as sources for parameters, making the purpose 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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: it retrieves a single scenario using category and slug values from route_emergency or list_scenarios. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases, but the implicit 'when you have the identifier' guidance is sufficient.

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, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'published' filter and return fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination, ordering, or potential size limits.

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 that front-loads the action and specifies the exact output fields. Every word adds value with no 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, read-only, idempotent), the description is fully sufficient. It states what is listed and the fields returned, and the output schema presumably confirms this.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 lists every published situation and specifies the returned fields (title, category, slug, canonical URLs). This distinguishes it from get_scenario, which likely retrieves a single item, and route_emergency, which handles routing.

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 use when you need an overview of all published situations, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or reference alternatives. Usage is inferred from the verb 'List' rather than stated.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return contents (who to call, order, first steps, costs, dispatch number) and the conditional nature ('when one is available'), as well as the state-based regional behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, dense sentence with an illustrative example and enumerates the outputs. All parts are necessary and there is no fluff. It is slightly long but appropriate for the complexity it conveys.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description covers the core behavior well: input format, output components, and optional state. It does not explicitly address edge cases like no match, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to 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% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description enriches beyond the schema by providing an example of 'problem' ('water coming through my ceiling') and explaining that 'state' enables 'region-aware dispatch numbers', which clarifies the purpose and value of the optional parameter.

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 ('returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('matching situation(s)') and the kind of output (who to call, first steps, costs, dispatch number). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on routing a plain-language emergency to action plans, rather than just retrieving or listing scenarios.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a user describes a home emergency in plain words. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names ('get_scenario', 'list_scenarios') imply those are for scenario lookup, while this tool is for emergency routing. The optional state parameter is mentioned as a way to get region-aware dispatch numbers, which adds usage context.

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