hooddue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the return format (CSV text) and the included fields, and 'export' implies a non-destructive read. However, it says nothing about potential size/volume limits, truncation, or performance implications of exporting the 'full' log, which would be valuable for a no-parameter export 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that puts the verb and resource first and appends the column details in a compact parenthetical. Every element earns its place with zero waste or 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?

For a no-parameter export with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the format, the scope (full log), and the column structure. The only gap is behavioral detail such as volume limits, which is a minor omission for a tool of this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds meaningful context about what the returned CSV will contain (the column list), which is the only semantics an agent needs for a parameterless export call.

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 ('Export'), a clear resource ('the full kitchen compliance log'), the output format ('CSV text'), and enumerates the columns (area, service, next due, status, chase history). This differentiates it from the query-oriented siblings, which return filtered views or summaries rather than a complete export.

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 word 'full' implies this is the complete-log alternative to the filtered siblings (get_compliance_summary, get_services_due, list_overdue_services, search_services), but the description never names an alternative or states explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to conditions. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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 discloses that the tool returns totals for several compliance categories, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires any permissions, or whether the summary is computed in real-time or cached. The lack of annotations makes this a moderate gap.

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 resource ('kitchen compliance summary') and then lists the specific data categories. Every word adds value, and the colon-separated list is easy to parse.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is quite complete: it tells the agent what data will be returned. The only missing context is whether the summary is read-only and whether any filters or date ranges apply, but given the tool's simplicity, 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining what the summary contains, which is the only relevant semantic information. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 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: retrieving a kitchen compliance summary with specific categories (tracked intervals, not scheduled, overdue with policy risk, due this week, awaiting tags). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('kitchen compliance summary'), and the listed categories distinguish it from sibling tools like list_overdue_services or get_services_due.

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 this is the go-to tool for a high-level compliance overview, and the listed categories suggest it aggregates multiple statuses. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it over siblings, but the specificity of the summary categories provides clear context. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so it falls 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is transparent enough. However, the description does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention any output format or pagination – acceptable for a list endpoint but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope and examples. No fluff or redundancy; every clause 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, the time window, and concrete examples of service types. No critical information appears 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 the schema already fully documents the 'days' parameter including its default. The description repeats the default and ties it to the 'due within' window, adding minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List'), resource ('services and permits'), and scope ('due within the next N days'), with concrete examples (hood cleanings, suppression inspections, permit renewals). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_overdue_services' (which implies past due rather than upcoming).

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 a clear context of what the tool returns (upcoming services/permits), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_overdue_services or search_services. The differentiation is implied by the 'due within the next N days' wording, but no direct routing guidance is offered.

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 burden. It discloses that results are sorted 'most serious first' and that the list focuses on exposures, adding behavioral context. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or whether the data is read-only, which is a minor gap given no 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?

The description is succinct, at two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose ('List overdue fire safety and health compliance intervals'). The second sentence adds a useful behavioral note about ordering, making every word earn 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns and how it's orderedUTE. A minor omission is that it doesn't state the response format, but that is less critical for a list-only tool without parameters.

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 provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the scope of the list (overdue fire safety and health compliance intervals), which is more than baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 lists overdue fire safety and health compliance intervals, and emphasizes that it sorts by seriousness. This distinguishes it from general service listings like 'search_services' and summary tools like 'get_compliance_summary', though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 identify compliance intervals that create immediate exposure, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use 'search_services' instead, leaving some ambiguity.

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 present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns matching records with next due date and status, and 'search' strongly implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state safety, pagination, or any permissions. The absence of annotation coverage 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 a single sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the verb and resource. The return-value clause is compact and useful.

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 one-optional-param search tool with no output schema, the description explains what is searched and names the key returned fields. The schema covers query syntax. The main missing piece is explicit sibling-tool guidance, but it is not fatal for correct invocation.

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 single query parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including case-insensitivity and shorthand behavior. The tool description adds value by stating matches can be by area, system, service type, or permit, which is broader than the schema's 'area or service.'

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 a specific action ('Search'), a concrete resource ('kitchen compliance intervals'), and the supported match dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings that export, summarize, or list due/overdue services.

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 this is the free-form search tool and the schema adds 'Omit to list everything,' giving some usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer get_services_due or list_overdue_services, so alternative routing is only implied.

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