toolzy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the tool checks availability and calculates price, but omits any side effects, permissions, or what 'available' means (e.g., return format). Lacks depth.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating function and providing usage examples. No redundancy or filler.

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 description should hint at return values. It does not. Three parameters are simple and all required, but the description is adequate for a basic tool, leaving some gaps.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 it checks availability for given dates and calculates total price. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_tool_details, search_tools) which serve different purposes.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (availability queries, price inquiries, 'is it available this weekend?'). Does not mention when NOT to use, but the examples are clear.

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. It discloses what is returned (price, features, photos) and the similar_tools behavior, including distance within 20 km and a usage policy (suggest if too expensive or too far). It could cover error cases, but for a simple detail-lookup tool this is transparent.

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 sentences, fully front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every clause adds value, including the similar_tools guidance. Zero redundancy and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately covers the return values and usage context. It is nearly complete, though it does not mention behavior when no similar tools exist or if the URL is invalid.

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 tool_url already documented including an example URL. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'Récupère les informations détaillées d'un outil sur Toolzy' with clear scope (prix, caractéristiques, photos). It distinguishes from siblings by implying search_tools is for finding tools and positioning this tool as the follow-up for a specific tool.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'quand l'utilisateur veut en savoir plus sur un outil spécifique après avoir vu les résultats de recherche.' This gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, which keeps it a step below a perfect score.

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 discloses important behavioral traits: search first covers the requested commune then neighboring communes within 15 km, each result includes `is_local` and `distance_km`, and `search_area` shows the breakdown. It also gives a user-communication mandate, adding value beyond the schema, though it does not detail sorting, pagination, or exact result shape.

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 four sentences and each one adds value: defining the search scope, giving user-intent triggers, explaining geographic behavior, and instructing the assistant on how to present results. It is slightly long but remains focused and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides crucial runtime behavior (radius expansion, result fields) and user-facing guidance. It does not fully specify the response structure beyond `is_local`, `distance_km`, and `search_area`, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 structured schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds little new parameter-level information; it restates the radius default and expansion behavior, but the schema already covers those details. The description does not meaningfully compensate beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Recherche d'outils et équipements disponibles à la location sur Toolzy," clearly stating the tool searches for rentable tools/equipment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (check_availability, get_tool_details) by being the search/query entry point with examples like "perceuse à Bordeaux".

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: "Utilisez ce tool quand l'utilisateur cherche un outil, veut louer du matériel, ou demande ce qui est disponible près de chez lui" with concrete examples. It also explains the search radius behavior and instructs the agent to always tell the user what is local vs. nearby, which is actionable context.

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