fone.me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are fone.me links, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, ranking, or what happens when no match is found. Adds some context beyond annotations, hence a 3.

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 with zero filler; the search verb and examples come first, followed by the return value. Every clause 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?

For a read-only, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers what is searched, how to phrase the query, and what comes back. Minor gaps around result count behavior and follow-up tools remain, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description supplements the query parameter with concrete natural-language examples that clarify the expected input style ('real estate agent in Miami'). The limit parameter is not mentioned in either place, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (search) plus resource (people's and businesses' AI agents) and scopes it to 'what they do or offer'. It does not name or contrast with the siblings get_agent and message_agent, so differentiation is left to inference, but the purpose itself is 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?

Usage is implied through the examples ('dog walker', 'real estate agent in Miami'), which suggest discovery-by-capability. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no routing to get_agent or message_agent for follow-up actions.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add return-content context. It does so by disclosing that the response contains both identity ('who is behind') and agent capabilities ('what their agent can help with'), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits error behavior for invalid or nonexistent links.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary outcome, with the example and the sequencing hint folded in rather than padded out. No sentence is wasted.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers input format, returned content, and its place in the messaging workflow. Only minor gaps remain (invalid-link behavior, whether the name form resolves ambiguously).

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% and the single parameter already documents the accepted format ('fone.me/sam' or 'sam'). The description's inline example is consistent with the schema but adds no new syntax or constraint detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('who is behind a fone.me link ... and what their agent can help with'), with a concrete example link. It implicitly separates itself from find_agents (search) and message_agent (messaging), but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'before messaging it' implies the lookup is a prerequisite step ahead of message_agent, which is useful implied context. However, it never states when to prefer this over find_agents or what to do if the link is unknown, so the routing guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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 write, open-world, non-idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new traits beyond that: the agent replies, the conversation continues across calls (statefulness), and on_behalf_of is surfaced to the owner.

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 compact sentences; the core action is front-loaded and the persistence note and parameter nudge follow without waste. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states that the agent's reply is returned and that conversation state persists, which an agent needs to interpret results. Annotations cover the rest, leaving little missing for a 3-parameter messaging 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description only reinforces on_behalf_of ('say who you're asking for') rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (send) plus resource (message to a fone.me agent) and the outcome (get its reply). The listed intents — question, booking, quote, leave a message — pin down the scope and clearly separate it from find_agents/get_agent, which only discover or fetch agents.

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?

Gives clear usage context through concrete examples (ask a question, request a booking or a quote, leave a message) and notes the conversation persists across calls. It never names find_agents or get_agent as alternatives or states when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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