SuggestionBox.tips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the disambiguation purpose but says nothing about what a hit/miss looks like or whether results are paginated or fuzzy-matched. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tightly written sentences, zero filler, with the lookup purpose front-loaded ahead of the usage condition.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup whose annotations cover safety, the description gives purpose and usage adequately. The only minor gap is that with no output schema, it does not indicate what a lookup result contains (a match, no match, candidates), leaving return semantics to inference.

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's meaning ('Name or website') is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no query syntax, matching behavior, or format guidance, so it cannot exceed the baseline.

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 ('look up whether') and a well-scoped resource (a business/organization's existing suggestion box on SuggestionBox.tips). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling leave_message, which performs a write action rather than a lookup.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the usage context: 'Use before leaving a message when unsure which one the user means.' This names the triggering condition and implicitly points to the leave_message flow, though it never names the sibling or states when-not to use this tool.

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 the write/idempotency/open-world profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the message is private between the user and the business, and the wording must be confirmed before sending (implying an irreversible send). It doesn't cover delivery timing, failures, or whether the business can reply beyond the optional email.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by constraints; no filler. The privacy sentence slightly overlaps the 'private suggestion box' phrasing, a minor redundancy.

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 burden and adequately conveys that the message lands privately in the business's box. A six-parameter mutation tool is well covered, though it says nothing about confirmation, delivery, or error outcomes.

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 already 83%, and the description still adds routing logic: use the website when known, else name plus city, which clarifies the business/city relationship. 'Suggestion, a problem or a compliment' also glosses the kind enum's idea/problem/loved values. It adds meaning beyond the schema rather than restating 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?

Specific verb and resource: dropping the user's feedback into a private suggestion box on SuggestionBox.tips. The channel (suggestion, problem, compliment) is stated, making the intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling find_business, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 preconditions: confirm the wording with the user before sending, and supply the website when known, otherwise the name and city. It does not name find_business as the lookup alternative or state when not to use this tool, but the operational context is clear.

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