hooddue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the output format (CSV text) and content columns, but does not explicitly state safety traits like read-only behavior, permission requirements, or pagination limits. The lack of side-effect disclosure is noticeable but not misleading for a simple export operation.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the action, output format, and included columns without any fluff or redundancy. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is fully sufficient. It covers the purpose, output format, and data structure, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% automatically. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 function: 'Export the full kitchen compliance log as CSV text' with specific columns listed. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on exporting the entire log rather than summaries or filtered subsets.

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 phrase 'full kitchen compliance log' provides clear context for when to use this tool (when the entire log is needed in CSV format). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the specific categories of totals returned, which gives insight into the tool's output. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any potential side effects, limitations, or additional behavior. For a simple getter, the category enumeration is helpful but not exhaustive, so a score of 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, followed by a colon and a concise list of the summary categories. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable level of completeness by listing the categories that the summary covers. It could be more complete by explaining how the totals are computed or what units are used, but for a summary getter, it is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected output.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to describe. The baseline for a tool with zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('kitchen compliance summary'), and enumerates the exact categories included (tracked intervals, not scheduled, overdue with policy risk, due this week, awaiting tags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_overdue_services and get_services_due, which focus on listing specific services rather than aggregating compliance totals.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives. It only states what the tool does, without mentioning contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use this for a high-level overview instead of listing individual services.' This leaves the selection decision to the agent without explicit direction.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is listed and the default window, but does not mention return format, pagination, sorting, or any side effects. As a read-only listing tool, this is acceptable but not rich in additional behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, includes relevant examples, and avoids unnecessary words. Every word 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?

The tool is a simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the scope and default behavior. It could be slightly more comprehensive by noting the return format or how it differs from 'overdue', but for a low-complexity tool it is generally complete.

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 'days' already has a clear description including the default value. The tool description repeats the default and adds examples, but does not add significant semantic value beyond the structured 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 a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'services and permits due within the next N days', with examples (hood cleanings, suppression inspections, permit renewals). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_overdue_services by the time window, making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage for looking ahead at upcoming services due, and notes the default 30-day window. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like list_overdue_services or search_services, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists overdue intervals and sorts by severity, which is useful. However, it does not mention permission requirements, return format, or what happens with no overdue items. It partially covers behavior.

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 a single sentence with a clear verb first and no filler. The em-dash clause adds important context, and 'Most serious first' is a concise ordering instruction.

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 list tool, the description conveys the domain (fire safety and health compliance), the filter (overdue), and the ordering. It falls short of describing the response fields, but given no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 schema defines zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 4 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?

The description uses the verb 'List' with a specific resource 'overdue fire safety and health compliance intervals' and adds ordering 'Most serious first.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_services_due and search_services by emphasizing overdue and severity.

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 phrase 'the ones that create insurance and inspection exposure right now' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when there are immediate compliance risks. It implies urgency and filtering, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies this is a search returning records, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it has no side effects, nor mention authentication or data constraints. This is adequate for a simple search but could be more explicit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a concise description of output. Every word adds value with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it searches and what it returns (next due date, status). It could mention pagination or result limits, but given the simplicity, this is not a significant gap. It is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 input schema already describes the 'query' parameter with 100% coverage, including case-insensitivity, shorthand examples, and listing-all behavior. The tool description adds the list of searchable fields (area, system, service type, permit) which partially overlaps with the schema's 'area or service' mention, providing slight additional context but not substantial 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?

Clearly states it searches kitchen compliance intervals by multiple criteria and returns specific fields. Verb 'Search' plus resource 'kitchen compliance intervals' makes purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, its general search scope distinguishes it from specific export/summary/due-list 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?

The description implies use when needing to find compliance records by area, system, service type, or permit. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like list_overdue_services or get_services_due, nor any exclusions. The context is present but not elaborated.

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