The Quartermaster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact verdict vocabulary returned, the components of the response (grade, fair price band, tag checks, cost per wear, better-value makers) and a data-freshness caveat ('checked September 2026').

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?

Purpose and triggers are front-loaded, and the sentences are dense with useful detail. The parenthetical list of resale sites (Nordstrom Rack, outlet, eBay, Grailed) partially duplicates the 'where' enum values, which is minor redundancy but not bloat.

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 carries the return-value burden and does it well, enumerating the verdict outcomes and the accompanying grade, price band, tag checklist and cost-per-wear figures. It also flags the vintage of the underlying grading data, which an agent needs to caveat its answer.

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 description goes slightly beyond by clarifying which details come from the listing text (fiber, build, compare-at price, where it is sold) and that they are supplied 'if known', signaling they are optional rather than required.

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 (judge/evaluate) and resource (one piece/secondhand or retail listing) with clear scope: a single-item worth-it verdict before purchase. It is easily distinguished from siblings like quartermaster_get_maker and quartermaster_plan_outfit, which do not evaluate price value.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions and even quotes the user phrasings ('is this worth it?', 'is this a good deal?', 'should I buy this?') plus the paste-a-listing case. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or routing to a sibling, so it falls just short of 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one behavioral trait beyond that — 'Accepts loose spellings' — but does not discuss lookup failure behavior or result completeness for unrecognized makers.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the usage trigger. The enumeration of returned fields is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the record answers. Slightly long but no 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing what a lookup returns, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior is unstated.

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, but the description adds genuine meaning with 'Accepts loose spellings,' telling the agent the maker string is matched fuzzily rather than exactly. That is the key invocation nuance for this single 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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Look up one maker in the Quartermaster ledger') and then enumerates the record's content: grade, construction, origin, off-price behavior, price ranges, and buying checks. The singular 'one maker' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_makers, 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when someone asks whether a menswear brand is any good or still good') with two concrete example questions. It doesn't name alternatives like list_makers or check_piece, but the usage condition is unambiguous.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the meaningful ordering trait ("best first") and that filters are optional, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or how many makers are returned.

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 efficiently packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The example-question list is slightly padded but earns its place as usage guidance rather than restating the name.

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 no-required-param read-only lister with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and filters adequately. Missing only minor details like return volume or default ordering semantics, which are not critical here.

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 67% and all three parameters are enums. The description references the category, minimum-grade, and off-price filters in prose, and the schema documents category and off_price in detail, but no param-level meaning is added beyond what the schema already conveys (min_grade remains undocumented). Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List makers graded in the Quartermaster ledger") and distinguishes itself from the singular sibling quartermaster_get_maker by being a list. An agent can tell what this returns and its ordering ("best first") 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?

Provides concrete example questions ("who makes good boots under $300", "best jeans that last") that map cleanly onto intended use. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling (get_maker for a single maker, check_piece for a specific item) or state 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.

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

With readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive already declared by annotations, the description adds real value: makers come only from the Quartermaster ledger, freshness is stated ('checked September 2026'), and pricing behavior is disclosed ('real price (full price or Nordstrom Rack)'). The response structure is also previewed. It does not discuss limits on catalog coverage or what happens when no maker fits the budget.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by output details and usage triggers. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the single long paragraph is slightly heavy but not padded.

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 planning tool with no output schema and 7 well-documented parameters, the description covers purpose, inputs' effect, data provenance, pricing model, and when to call it. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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 high (86%) so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning about how budget is consumed ('best-graded maker that fits the money at a real price') and how cloth/cut feed the tailoring advice. It enriches the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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 ('prescribe') and resource ('a complete outfit for an occasion within a budget'), and unpacks what the output contains (best-graded maker, second choice, fitting checks, cloth/cut/tag advice). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_maker and check_piece, which handle single entities rather than a full plan.

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 explicit context: 'Use after the fitting questions, or straight away when someone gives the occasion and the money,' with a worked example ('wedding in October, $800, what do I get?'). It implies the relationship to start_fitting but stops short of naming when to prefer the sibling tools instead.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the return contents (the tailor's questions in order, the occasions he dresses for, the full kit per impression) since no output schema exists. It does not clarify whether starting a fitting creates resumable session state, which is relevant given idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and identity, then usage triggers, then return content. The example list is long but each item maps to a real enum value, so it earns its space; the final sentence about plan_outfit could be folded in more tightly.

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 usefully explains what comes back and how it connects to the sibling tool, and the occasion examples align with the enum. The only gap is statefulness/session behavior, which an agent calling a 'start' tool would want to know.

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 'room' parameter is documented with a five-value enum in the schema. The description's occasion examples mirror those enum values but add no format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 and resource (start a guided fitting) plus what the tool actually is (an independent menswear concierge), and explicitly names quartermaster_plan_outfit as the consumer of the output, so the agent can separate it from the other quartermaster siblings.

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 triggering conditions with concrete user phrasings ('what should I wear to my friend's wedding', 'I have nothing to wear') and states the downstream step (answers feed quartermaster_plan_outfit). It lacks any when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. that a single-piece question should route to quartermaster_check_piece instead.

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