Duffer Golf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by clarifying "it sends nothing to anyone" (no external side effects) and by enumerating the return verdicts (fits/tight/ask/no), which annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing limits or edge behavior for out-of-range dimensions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then inputs, then returns and safety. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none is padding.

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 compensates by naming the return contents (overall verdict, per-model verdict, which measurement is short) and enumerating the possible verdict values. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a 100%-covered schema, nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three dimensions are already documented with bounds and orientation (e.g. depth measured from the folding wall). The description only adds the "whole inches" unit hint and names the three measurements, which the schema already conveys; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a concrete question that states the exact task (checking whether a Duffer fits a room) and names the resource (Duffer golf bay vs. room dimensions). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like list_models or find_dealers, and further specifies input units and return shape.

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?

"Will a Duffer fit a room? Give the room's width, depth and ceiling height in whole inches" makes the use case and the required input context clear, and "whole inches" tells the agent how to format input. It does not name alternatives or an explicit when-not-to-use, but the sibling tools are unrelated so no routing ambiguity exists.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with domain-specific phrasing — 'it does not send a message or place an order' — which usefully rules out the plausible-but-wrong assumption that a contact tool submits a message. It stops short of noting rate limits or return format, which is acceptable given the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence lists the payload contents, followed by a short clarifying clause about the absence of side effects. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, and it does so by enumerating email, location, response time, and the four page links. It could state the format of those links, but it is complete enough for an agent to select and call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify on inputs, and it correctly does not invent any.

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 names the resource (contact info for Duffer Golf) and enumerates its contents — email, location, response time, and page links — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like get_faq and find_dealers by covering contact/reserve/shop/checkout links, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when the user needs contact details or a link to reserve/shop/checkout. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition selecting it over get_faq or find_dealers, and no exclusions.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's closing 'Read-only' adds nothing. It does contribute real behavioral context beyond the annotations: that results are 'approved' dealers and that absent coverage the fallback is direct shipping, which affects how an agent interprets an empty result.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences that earn their place; the scope and optional state filter lead. The trailing 'Read-only' clause is redundant with the annotations, a minor 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 simple read-only lookup with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and fallback behavior. With no output schema, it could say more about what a dealer record contains, but that gap is small.

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 optional parameter is fully documented (two-letter code or name, omit for all). The description adds only the nuance that a state match can be by 'located in or serving' it, which the schema does not state — a marginal but genuine addition. 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+resource (find approved Duffer dealers) and qualifies the resource precisely: shops that sell, offer local pickup, or install, optionally restricted to one US state. No sibling tool overlaps this lookup, so disambiguation is inherent.

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 useful operational context — the 'no dealer nearby' case routes to direct sales shipping to every state — but never states when to call this versus siblings or when to omit vs. supply state beyond what the schema already says ('Omit for every dealer'). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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 the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral information beyond them: matching is case-insensitive, based on shared words, and results are ranked with best matches first. It stops short of describing entry structure or result-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?

Essentially one sentence that front-loads the filter behavior and the omit-for-all case. The opening clause identifying Tate Mauck is personality rather than instruction, a small amount of non-earning text, but it is brief and does not obscure the operational content.

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-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is close to sufficient. However, with no output schema, the agent is never told what an 'entry' contains (question/answer pairs, fields, or result ordering format), which is the one remaining unknown needed to use the results 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 baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by defining the matching semantics the schema does not: case-insensitive, word-overlap rather than substring, and relevance ordering. That materially changes how an agent should phrase a query. The maxLength/example detail is left to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 names the resource (Duffer Golf's FAQ) and the retrieval behavior (keep entries sharing a word with the query, or all entries if omitted). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though the lead-in about Tate Mauck is flavor rather than purpose. No sibling tool overlaps with FAQ lookup, so differentiation is not a concern.

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 states both branches of use: pass a query to filter, omit it to get everything. That is clear operational guidance for the only parameter. It does not name any alternative tool or when-not-to-use case, but none of the siblings (check_fit, contact_info, find_dealers, list_models) competes for this job.

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, closed-world and non-destructive, so 'Read-only.' is redundant and earns nothing. What does add value is the disclosure of response scope — USD delivered pricing, inclusions, inch dimensions, build/ship times, warranty, installation and financing — which tells the agent what it can answer with this call in the absence of an output schema.

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 dense but front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource, then the attribute payload. Nothing is filler except the trailing 'Read-only.', which merely restates the annotations and could be dropped.

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 zero-parameter, read-only catalog call with no output schema and presumably four fixed records, the description gives enough — it enumerates exactly what data comes back. It omits any pointer to the natural next step (check_fit for room suitability), which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document; baseline for a no-param tool 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?

Names the exact resource — the four Duffer Golf folding simulator enclosures (Duffer 8 / Duffer 10, System or Complete) — and enumerates the attributes each carries. This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like check_fit, find_dealers, and get_faq, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the catalog/price lookup for the model line, but the description never states when to prefer it over check_fit (room-fit evaluation) or find_dealers, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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