Prelude NZ — Instrument Rental

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It accurately describes a read-only retrieval of FAQ content and lists coverage areas. It does not disclose response format or data freshness, but for a no-parameter tool these gaps are minor and do not mislead.

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 verb and resource, no fluff. 'and more' is slightly vague but does not impair clarity.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the complexity is low. The description gives the essential context and covers the main topics. It could be slightly more explicit about what the returned FAQ data looks like, but that is not necessary given the simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for no parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific info because none exist, 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 clearly states the tool retrieves FAQs about renting instruments from Prelude NZ, and lists specific topics covered (rental mechanics, plans, pricing, delivery, returns). This distinguishes it from siblings like get-pricing-tool and search-instruments-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?

The description implies when to use it: when a user has questions about renting instruments and the specific topics listed. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return value ('Returns all available plan options with monthly and total prices'), which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, whether data is real-time, or any authentication or rate limitations. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but leaves some gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids fluff and every sentence provides useful information (what the tool gets and what it returns).

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the resource, the scope (Prelude NZ), and the output (plan options with prices). The schema covers the parameter format. The workflow is further clarified by the schema hint to use search-instruments. Minor missing details like currency or sample output are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The parameter description in the schema explains the format and gives an example ('student-violin'), and also directs the user to search-instruments for valid slugs, which adds semantic value. The main description adds no additional parameter insight, so a score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get rental pricing plans for a specific instrument at Prelude NZ.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('rental pricing plans'), and the mention of 'instrument' and 'Prelude NZ' distinguishes it from sibling tools like FAQs, instruments search, and teachers search.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool (when needing rental pricing for an instrument) and is clearly distinct from sibling tools. The parameter schema further guides the user to 'Use search-instruments first to find slugs,' providing context for the required workflow without explicitly naming the alternative in the main description.

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 disclosure burden. It states return fields (name, category, tier, pricing, availability, link), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, or any constraints like pagination or rate limits. The 'search' verb implies read-only, but the transparency is minimal.

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-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information or filler. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and filter options. It lacks details such as combination semantics, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete. The return fields are explicitly listed, which is essential when no output schema is present.

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 adds example values (violin, flute for category; strings, woodwind for family) but these are similar to the schema examples. It does not clarify whether both filters can be used together or how they combine, so it adds minimal value 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource: 'instruments available for rental at Prelude NZ'. It also mentions filtering by category or family, making it distinct from sibling tools like get-faqs-tool, get-pricing-tool, and search-teachers-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?

The description clearly indicates when to use this tool: when searching for rental instruments, with optional filters. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the specificity of 'instruments' and the visible sibling names make the context clear. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, so not 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns teacher names, regions, instruments, and a profile link, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only status, pagination, or behavior when filters are omitted, leaving some ambiguity for a search tool.

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 three short, focused sentences: purpose, filtering capability, and return format. It is front-loaded, contains no fluff, and every sentence adds valuable information.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: purpose, filters, return fields, and a note about where to get full details. It lacks an explicit statement about optional filtering behavior (e.g., what happens if no filters are provided), but this is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 both parameters (region and instrument) adequately described with examples. The tool description only repeats 'filter by instrument and region' without adding new semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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 purpose: finding music teachers in New Zealand. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the target resource (teachers) and name-dropping Prelude, making it distinct from search-instruments-tool or FAQ/pricing tools.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (whenever you need to find music teachers) and mentions filtering by instrument and region. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the focus on teachers provide enough context for an agent to choose this over get-faqs-tool or get-pricing-tool.

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