Namaste America

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: creates a single-use claim, logs draft with anti-spam guardrails, not auto-sent, and flags high-value targets. It could add more detail on side effects or idempotency.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains process and constraints, third clarifies behavior and return. No unnecessary words.

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 process and outcome are well-described, and an output schema exists (not shown). However, the lack of parameter explanation leaves a gap for an agent to know how to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it does not mention 'limit' or 'min_confidence'. The purpose is clear, but the meaning and effect of these parameters are left unexplained.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Generate claim links and personalized outreach drafts') and resource ('unclaimed restaurants'), and the additional details distinguish it from sibling tools like find_unclaimed_restaurants, which likely only lists restaurants.

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 generating outreach drafts but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does clarify that messages aren't auto-sent, but doesn't discuss alternatives or preconditions.

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 full burden. It discloses exclusion criteria and that results are annotated with channel and human flag. No side effects or destructive hints needed for a read 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?

Two sentences, highly concise with no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose, immediately stating what the tool 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?

Adequately explains filtering logic and result annotations, but lacks parameter guidance. With an output schema present, return value explanation is not needed.

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 0% and the description does not explain the two parameters (limit, min_confidence). No added meaning beyond the schema defaults.

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 that the tool lists active, unclaimed restaurants eligible for claim outreach, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_restaurant_details or search_restaurants_by_text which serve different purposes.

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 describes what the tool does and its exclusions (open claims, cooldown), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like draft_claim_outreach or general search 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?

No annotations exist, so description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation returning a record and history, but doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects or mention any requirements.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output.

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 an output schema exists and only one parameter, the description provides enough context for the return, but lacks parameter description and usage context, leaving it somewhat incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the only parameter 'apparel_id', missing an opportunity to clarify its meaning or format.

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 it returns the 'Full canonical record' plus 'version history' for one apparel/jewelry store, distinguishing it from sibling tools for other domains.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_apparel_by_text or other detail tools; the description only states what it does.

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 bears full responsibility. It discloses the return content (full record + version history) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, side effects, or other behavioral traits. The description is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Essential information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema, the description provides adequate scope (record + version history) but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not explain what community_id represents, how to obtain it, or any constraints.

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 specifies the action: retrieving a full canonical record and version history for a single community organization. The verb 'get' combined with 'Full canonical record' and 'one community organization' distinguishes it from sibling search tools and other get_X_details 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 implies usage when a complete record of a specific community organization is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search or other detail tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the canonical record and version history, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects.

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, direct and free of extraneous content. It efficiently captures the core functionality.

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 (one param, output schema present), the description adequately explains the output scope (record + version history). However, it lacks mention of potential errors or prerequisites.

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 has one required parameter 'education_id' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain the parameter meaning, though the schema title provides minimal clarity. The description could add context about the 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full record including version history for one education/tutoring listing. It uses the verb 'get' and identifies the specific resource, distinguishing it from search tools and Indian-specific variants.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied for retrieving details by ID, but no when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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 alone conveys that the tool returns a record and version history. The description does not disclose additional behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, or data freshness. The verb 'get' implies safety, but explicit statement would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every element ('full canonical record', 'version history') adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (presumably covering return values), the description provides the core purpose but lacks guidance on event_id's meaning or usage context. With many sibling detail tools, more contextual cues would help the agent differentiate, such as mentioning what 'events' entails.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning for parameters. However, it does not mention or explain the 'event_id' parameter (e.g., its source or format). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's name and type.

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 it retrieves the 'Full canonical record for one event' plus version history. It specifies the action (get), resource (event), and scope (one event), distinguishing it from sibling list/search tools like get_indian_events or search_events_by_text.

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 obtaining detailed event data, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives such as search_events_by_text or other get_*_details tools. No exclusions or contextual guidance is provided.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the tool returns a full canonical record and version history. This adequately communicates the read behavior and output scope, though it could explicitly state it is read-only.

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 (11 words) that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no 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?

Given the simple input schema (single integer parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns (full record + version history). No additional information is needed for this tool.

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 0%, but the single parameter finance_id is self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter-specific details but contextualizes the tool's purpose, which indirectly clarifies the parameter's role. Baseline 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 it retrieves the full canonical record plus version history for a finance/tax listing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_apparel_details or get_restaurant_details by specifying the domain (finance/tax).

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 finance/tax entities but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., search_finance_by_text). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, only implicit context from the tool name.

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 must convey behavioral traits. It states it returns a record and version history, but does not explicitly indicate it is read-only or require authorization. The term 'full canonical record' implies safe retrieval, but transparency is limited.

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 concise with one sentence, but it lacks critical details about parameters and usage, making it less effective despite brevity.

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 existence of an output schema, the description partially covers the return value by mentioning 'full canonical record' and 'version history'. However, the parameter remains undocumented, and the absence of usage guidance leaves the tool incomplete for effective use.

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 0%, yet the description does not mention or explain the sole required parameter grocery_id. The agent must infer from context, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 identifies the tool as returning a 'full canonical record' and 'version history' for a grocery store, distinguishing it from other get_*_details tools by domain. However, it could be more explicit about requiring a specific ID.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_indian_groceries or search_groceries_by_text. The description does not specify that it returns data for a single store by ID.

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. It does not disclose behavior like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no results. It also does not explain the output format, though an output schema exists.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Given 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main usage patterns (location and filters). It could mention the limit parameter, but otherwise is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It explains lat, lng, radius_miles, city, state, tag, and open_now, but misses the limit parameter entirely. It provides example tag values, which helps.

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 the tool finds Indian apparel & jewelry stores with specific examples (sarees, lehengas, ethnic wear, gold jewelers), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_indian_restaurants or search_apparel_by_text.

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 provides two clear usage modes (point-based or city/state) and lists filters like tag and open_now. It does not explicitly mention when to use search_apparel_by_text instead, but the context from sibling names suggests an alternative for text-based search.

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 full burden. It implies a read-only search operation by saying 'Find', but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently provides usage instructions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), return values are handled externally. However, the description does not cover all 8 parameters (missing limit, open_now, radius_miles) and assumes the agent knows how to combine location inputs. It is sufficiently complete for core usage but leaves some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains lat, lng, city, state, and tag, giving examples for tag. However, it omits limit, open_now, and radius_miles, leaving those parameters undocumented in both schema and description. Partial coverage earns a middle score.

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 finds Indian community organizations and cultural associations, listing specific examples (regional samaj/sangam, cultural centers, Indo-American associations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_indian_restaurants or search_community_by_text, as it focuses on organizations rather than businesses or text 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 provides some guidance on how to use parameters (provide a point or city/state, filter by tag), but it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_community_by_text. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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 must carry the burden. It adequately describes the filtering options but lacks disclosure of side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded, and uses a clear structure: purpose first, then usage instructions. No redundant sentences.

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 has 8 parameters (none required) and an output schema exists, the description covers most aspects but misses the 'limit' and 'open_now' parameters, leaving a small gap for completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining key parameters (lat, lng, radius_miles, city, state, tag) and their grouping. However, it omits explanations for 'limit' and 'open_now'.

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 ('Find') and resource ('Indian-American education & tutoring'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the sub-type (heritage/language schools, Bal Vihar, coaching).

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (location-based or city/state, filtering by tag) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like search_education_by_text.

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 UPCOMING events by default, sorted soonest first, and that include_past changes this. It also mentions the fields returned: start_at/end_at, venue, category, and description. This provides adequate behavioral transparency.

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 concise with a few sentences, using a bullet-like list structure for readability. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then explains filtering and defaults efficiently.

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 complexity (9 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers input parameters, default behaviors, and return fields. It is nearly complete for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that lat+lng can be paired with radius_miles, city/state are alternative location filters, category and tag are filter options, and include_past controls historical data. It does not elaborate on every parameter (e.g., limit default), but coverage is good for the main parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Find upcoming Indian-American community events' and lists specific examples like festivals, garba, concerts, puja. It clearly identifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_event_details (specific event details) and search_events_by_text (text-based 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 explains how to use the tool: provide a point (lat+lng with optional radius_miles) or city/state, and filter by category or tag. It also notes default behavior (upcoming events, soonest first) and the include_past option. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, it provides clear usage context.

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 full burden. It discloses search functionality but lacks behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination, or output format. The presence of an output schema mitigates this slightly, but significant transparency gaps remain.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately explain search options. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 has 8 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description provides a high-level overview but does not fully cover all parameters (missing limit, open_now) or discuss output. An output schema exists but isn't referenced. The description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning for lat, lng, radius_miles, city, state, and tag. However, it omits parameters limit (default 25) and open_now (default false), and does not explain defaults or format details. It partially compensates for the schema gap but is incomplete.

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 it finds Indian-American CPAs, tax preparers, and financial advisors, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_indian_professionals or get_finance_details by listing specific professions, though it could be more explicit about the scope.

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 explains how to search (by lat/lng+radius or city/state, filter by tag) but does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_finance_by_text or get_finance_details. Some usage context is provided, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use 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?

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It lists return fields (description, store type, tags, hours, region, open_now) and hints at read-only nature ('Find'). Does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or confirm safety beyond implicit read-only.

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: first defines tool, second describes usage and return info. No redundant information. Efficient and to the point.

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 output schema exists, description adequately complements by explaining query options and record contents. Covers all necessary aspects for a search tool with moderate 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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It covers 8 of 9 parameters (lat, lng, radius_miles, city, state, region_tag, tag, open_now) with relationships and examples. Misses 'limit' parameter. Adds value beyond schema names.

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 the tool finds Indian grocery stores, with specific verb 'Find' and resource 'Indian grocery stores'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_grocery_details (which is for a single store) and other Indian-specific 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?

Explicitly tells how to query: use lat+lng or city/state. Mentions optional filters like region_tag, tag, open_now. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but context from sibling names implies differentiation.

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 should disclose behavioral traits like what happens if no results or authentication needs. It only describes input requirements, leaving the agent unaware of side effects or limitations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is highly concise.

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 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential location filtering but omits details about limit, open_now, and precedence rules, making it incomplete for optimal use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the main parameters (lat, lng, radius_miles, city, state, tag) but misses limit and open_now, and does not clarify interactions like precedence between point and city inputs.

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 finds Indian-American immigration attorneys & law firms, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like search_legal_by_text, which might also find attorneys but via text 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 provides instructions on how to use the tool (provide location via point or city/state, filter by tag) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention what not to do.

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. It discloses the data source (TMDB), the limitation that per-theater showtimes are unavailable, and the output fields. This provides adequate behavioral insight for a read-only listing 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 concise (two short paragraphs), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague statements.

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 no annotations and an output schema, the description covers key aspects: supported languages, optional filter, output fields, and data source limitations. It is complete for a simple listing tool, though it could mention pagination or result count behavior (e.g., cap).

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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for the 'language' parameter with an example ('Telugu'), but does not explain the 'limit' parameter beyond its default. The agent can infer limit's purpose from the default, but a brief description would improve clarity.

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 explicitly states the tool lists Indian-language movies in US theaters and enumerates the supported languages. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other categories like restaurants, apparel, etc.

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 explains optional language filtering and notes that ticket_url is a general search link (not per-theater showtimes). While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, the sibling tools are entirely different domains, so usage context is clear.

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 full burden. It discloses that matches are based on an Indian-name signal and includes a confidence_score, revealing probabilistic nature. No contradictions; additional details like rate limits or pagination are absent but the core behavioral trait is conveyed.

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 short paragraphs, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence is essential: the first defines the tool, the second explains usage. No redundant text.

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 10 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema, the description covers key usage modes and outputs. It could mention the default limit (25) or that results are list-based, but the provided information is sufficient for tool selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the two location modes (point vs. city/state), lists filters, and gives examples for specialty. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could clarify the limit parameter default.

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 finds Indian-American healthcare professionals, listing specific types (doctors, dentists, clinics, pharmacies). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like get_indian_restaurants or get_indian_temples.

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 provides clear instructions for use: provide a point (lat+lng+radius) or city/state, and optional filters. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the scope evident.

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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Find' implying a read operation, but does not mention whether it modifies data, authorization needs, or any side effects. The description lacks depth on behavior beyond the basic action.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and quickly lists parameters. Every sentence 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?

Despite 8 parameters, the description covers the main search modalities and filtering. It omits limit and open_now, but output schema exists to explain return values. Overall, it is fairly complete for a search tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining lat, lng, radius_miles, city, state, and tag usage, including example values for tag. However, it omits limit and open_now parameters, leaving gaps. The description partially compensates for schema coverage.

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 'Find Indian-American realtors & real-estate agencies.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and defines the resource ('Indian-American realtors & real-estate agencies'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_realestate_details or search_realestate_by_text.

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 explains two usage modes: by point (lat+lng+radius_miles) or by city/state, and optional tag filtering. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_realestate_by_text or get_realestate_details, but provides clear context for when 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return fields (description, tags, confidence_score, etc.) but does not mention errors, ordering, pagination, or side effects.

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 paragraphs: first states purpose and location requirement, second lists optional filters and return fields. Efficiently conveys all necessary info without redundant or missing sentences.

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 11 parameters and no annotations, the description covers most aspects but misses the 'limit' parameter and does not specify behavior when both point and city are provided.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each of the 11 parameters, including examples for region_tag, dietary_tags, and tag, compensating for the schema gap.

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 'Find Indian restaurants by location and/or filters' with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_indian_apparel or search_restaurants_by_text.

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 clear usage guidance on location parameters (point vs city/state) and lists optional filters, but does not explicitly exclude when to use this tool vs siblings like search_restaurants_by_text.

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 full burden. It discloses that records include description, services, hours, and open_now flag, and supports filtering. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, data freshness, rate limits, or potential errors. The description adds value but lacks depth on behavioral nuances.

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 roughly two sentences with a clear structure: purpose first, then usage instructions. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, but could be slightly more concise by merging the filtering mention.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides a good overview of how to use the tool and what is returned. However, it lacks details on parameter combinations (e.g., location vs. city/state exclusivity), error cases, and the limit parameter. Not fully complete but adequate for basic usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains most parameters: lat+lng, radius_miles, city, state, tag (with examples like 'threading'), open_now. It does not mention the limit parameter. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states it finds Indian beauty salons and lists specific services (threading, henna, hair, bridal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_salon_details (specific salon) and search_salons_by_text (text search). The verb 'find' and resource 'Indian beauty salons' are specific.

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 explains the usage pattern: provide location (lat+lng+radius or city/state) and optional filters (tag, open_now). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings like search_salons_by_text or get_salon_details, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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 provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It explains input parameters but not output behavior, data freshness, authentication needs, or if results are paginated. The limit parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description.

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 purpose, then usage pattern. No redundant information. Highly efficient.

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?

Adequate for a tool with output schema (which likely covers return values). Missing details on pagination, error cases, or how results are sorted. Could mention that lat+lng enables proximity search and city/state covers named locations.

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 0%, but description adds meaning to parameters: explains lat+lng vs city/state, gives examples for tag values, and mentions open_now filter. Does not explain limit or radius_miles defaults, but adds value beyond bare 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 what the tool does: find Indian community services with specific categories listed. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_indian_apparel or get_indian_education, leading to potential confusion about scope.

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 clear instructions on how to use parameters (location or city/state, filters). Lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives among siblings, and no 'when not to use' advice.

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?

Lists available filters but does not discuss behavior like result format, default limit, error cases, or authentication needs. With no annotations, description should bear more burden; missing limit parameter mention is a 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?

Very concise and front-loaded. Each sentence adds value without 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?

Covers main input options but does not mention result type (list), pagination, or differentiation from text-search sibling. With output schema present, return format is handled, but usage context still has gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds substantial meaning: explains location options (lat/lng vs city/state), radius, tag filtering with examples, and open_now. Only limit parameter is omitted.

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 finds Indian yoga and cultural studios with specific examples (yoga, classical dance, music, language classes). Distinct from sibling tools like get_indian_restaurants or search_studios_by_text.

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?

Implies usage for location- or tag-based search, but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like search_studios_by_text or provide when-not-to-use 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it discuss side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short paragraphs. Every sentence adds value, with the main purpose front-loaded. No redundant 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?

Given 8 parameters, no required ones, and an output schema, the description effectively covers core usage: location methods and filtering. It lacks guidance on combining parameters and pagination (limit), but overall is adequate.

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 0%, but the description explains lat/lng as a point, radius_miles as optional, city/state as alternatives, and tag with examples. It covers open_now but omits explaining the limit parameter (default 25). Overall adds significant meaning.

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 'Find Indian sweets shops (mithai) & bakeries', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_sweets_by_text' by emphasizing location-based queries, but lacks explicit 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?

The description provides clear instructions: use lat/lng+radius_miles or city/state, filter by tag or open_now. It gives example tags, but does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like search_sweets_by_text.

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 should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions search modes and output fields but fails to disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or that this is a search (not a single-fetch) tool. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 concise sentences: purpose, search options, output fields. Front-loaded with essential information. No wasted words.

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 an output schema exists, the description covers search modes, filters, and key output fields well. It lacks mention of pagination (limit) and default radius, but overall is fairly complete for a search tool with 10 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains lat/lng, city/state, religion (with examples), denomination (example), tag, and open_now. However, it misses the 'limit' parameter and does not clarify exclusive use of location vs. city/state.

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 finds Indian-American temples (Hindu/Sikh/Jain), specifying the types of places of worship. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_temple_details, but the function is distinct as a search 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 usage for finding temples by location or filters but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., 'for a specific temple, use get_temple_details'). The context is clear but lacks 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?

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full canonical record' and 'version history' but omits important traits like read-only status, authentication requirements, or side effects. The behavioral information 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?

The description is extremely concise at 12 words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose with no unnecessary details.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity. It misses usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and sufficient behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 0% and the tool description does not explain the legal_id parameter. It fails to clarify what legal_id is or how to obtain it, adding no value beyond the schema's type and required status.

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 the full canonical record for an immigration/legal listing, including version history. The verb 'get' and resource 'legal listing' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_legal_by_text, which is a minor gap.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_legal_by_text or other get_*_details tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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 full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a full record and version history, but does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, or required permissions.

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-formed sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context about the uniqueness of the professional_id, edge cases, or relation to sibling tools. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 parameter 'professional_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints to the parameter beyond its type.

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 the full canonical record and version history for one professional/practice. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling search 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_professionals_by_text. It implicitly covers the single-record retrieval case but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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 full burden. It mentions that the tool returns a full canonical record and version history, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any destructive 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose. Every word is informative and there is no extraneous 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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, an output schema (not shown but indicated), and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It clearly defines the output as a full canonical record and version history. However, it could explicitly state that it returns a single object, not a list.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the single parameter 'realestate_id'. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning or usage details, leaving the purpose of the parameter ambiguous.

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 the full canonical record and version history for one real-estate listing. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('real-estate listing'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'search_realestate_by_text' and 'get_indian_realestate'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as search or filter tools. Usage is implied (for a single listing's full details) but no exclusions or context about when not to use it.

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 full burden. It only states what data is returned ('full canonical record plus version history') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, error handling (e.g., missing ID), authorization requirements, or rate limits. The output schema exists but is not shown, and the description adds no such transparency.

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 wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage or parameter details without losing conciseness.

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 (one param, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it does not fully compensate. Missing guidance on when to use versus sibling tools (e.g., 'get_indian_restaurants') and no param explanation make it less 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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. However, it only says 'for one restaurant' and does not define 'restaurant_id' beyond what the schema already states (type integer, required). No additional meaning like format, source, or constraints is provided.

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 that the tool fetches the 'full canonical record plus version history' for one restaurant, using the specific verb 'fetch' and identifying the resource uniquely. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_indian_restaurants' and 'search_restaurants_by_text' by narrowing to a single canonical record by ID.

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 when needing the full record for a specific restaurant by ID, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search tools or other get_*_details tools. No exclusions or context are given.

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 disclosure burden. It reveals that reviews are published, community-submitted, ordered newest first, and describes the return format. It does not mention authentication needs or side effects, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 sentences long, front-loading the core functionality and then adding distinguishing details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

The description comprehensively covers the return format and distinguishes the tool from siblings. However, it completely omits parameter guidance such as what 'vertical' represents or how 'limit' affects pagination. Given the existence of an output schema, the return value explanation is adequate, but parameter documentation is lacking.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions. The description does not explain the meaning of the parameters (vertical, listing_id, limit). It only mentions 'listing' in the description, which vaguely refers to listing_id but gives no detail on valid values, constraints, or behavior.

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 that the tool retrieves published community reviews for a listing, ordered newest first, along with a rolled-up community rating. It distinguishes this from web-harvested ratings found in other tools, making its purpose unique among 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to get community reviews and rating) and explicitly differentiates the community rating from web-harvested ratings. However, it does not advise on when not to use it or mention any prerequisites or constraints.

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. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or error handling. 'Full canonical record' is vague for behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks context like requiring a specific salon ID or that it's not for bulk listings, which is minimal but not harmful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the sole parameter 'salon_id'. The schema already identifies it as a required integer, so the description adds value only by omission.

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 it returns a 'full canonical record' and 'version history' for one salon, which distinguishes it from sibling tools for other entities. However, it doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only retrieval operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_salons_by_text or get_indian_salons. The description does not mention prerequisites or context of use.

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 available, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read operation but does not mention side effects, permission needs, rate limits, or any constraints. The description is minimal beyond stating what is 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It states the return includes a canonical record and version history, but lacks detail on the structure or fields. It could benefit from clarifying what a 'service business' entails.

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 parameter 'service_id' has no description beyond its type (integer) in the schema. The tool description adds no explanation of what a valid service_id is or how to obtain it. Schema description coverage is 0%.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the full canonical record for one service business plus version history. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_restaurant_details by specifying 'service business'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_services_by_text or other detail tools. The description does not indicate prerequisites or common use cases.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation returning canonical record and version history, but omits details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about what constitutes a 'studio' and prerequisites for use. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The only parameter, studio_id, is mentioned in the description implicitly through context, but no additional semantics (e.g., how to obtain it, constraints) are provided, offering 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 clearly states the tool returns the 'full canonical record' and 'version history' for a single studio, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_restaurant_details or search_studios_by_text, which serve different purposes.

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 fetching detailed data about one studio, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_indian_studios or search_studios_by_text. No exclusions or context are provided.

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 must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a 'full canonical record' and 'version history', but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The behavioral impact is insufficiently explained.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys two key points: retrieval of a full record and inclusion of version history. It is concise with no redundancy, though a slight restructuring could improve readability.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description should still provide context on when to use it and what to expect. It lacks guidance on usage scenarios, preconditions, or behavior. The mention of version history adds some context, but overall it is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description only implies that the single required parameter 'sweets_id' identifies a sweets shop. It does not elaborate on the parameter's format, source, or constraints beyond the schema's type integer. Minimal added meaning.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a full canonical record for a sweets shop/bakery, including version history. The verb is implied by the tool name 'get', and it distinguishes from search tools by specifying a single record. However, it does not differentiate from sibling get_*_details tools that serve similar purposes for different categories, which is acceptable given the pattern.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_sweets_by_text or get_indian_sweets. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or situations to avoid. The description is silent on usage context.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned (canonical record and version history) but not whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It does not contradict any annotations but is insufficiently transparent.

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 short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a verb or restructuring for clarity, but it is not verbose.

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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It identifies what the tool returns. The output schema presumably details the return value, so the description suffices, though it could mention that it retrieves by ID.

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 has one required parameter 'temple_id' with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description does not explain the parameter or its expected format, relying solely on the parameter's name, which is self-explanatory but still lacks explicit guidance.

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 'Full canonical record for one temple, plus its version history' clearly states the tool retrieves a complete record and history for a specific temple. It uses a specific verb (implies 'get') and resource ('temple'), distinguishing it from sibling search tools and other detail 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_temples_by_text or other get_details tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate use.

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 provided, but the description details ranking criteria (exact match, similarity, proximity, freshness) and result tagging by vertical, which is sufficient 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?

Concise, well-structured paragraph that front-loads purpose, lists verticals, provides examples, and explains ranking. No redundant 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?

Comprehensive for a search tool with 6 parameters and output schema present. Covers usage, constraints, and ranking. Could add default limit value.

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 0%, but description explains most parameters (query, lat, lng, city, state) and their role in ranking. Does not mention 'limit' 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches across multiple Indian-American verticals, listing them explicitly. It distinguishes from vertical-specific sibling tools by emphasizing broad, cross-vertical searches.

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 clear usage guidance for broad queries with examples, and mentions optional constraints like city/state. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives beyond implied narrow scope.

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 provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, ordering, or what data is returned. The phrase 'semantic search' is vague.

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 extremely concise (8 words) but lacks essential information. It front-loads the main action but is too sparse to be helpful.

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 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention the output schema, provide examples, or cover usage context.

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 0%. The description fails to explain any parameter (query, city, state, limit). Only implies that 'query' is free text, but provides no details on format or optional filters.

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: free-text/semantic search over Indian apparel & jewelry stores. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_indian_apparel'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other search tools or data retrieval tools. No context on prerequisites or when not to use.

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 must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'free-text/semantic search' but omits important details such as read-only nature, output format, pagination, or rate limits. The agent gets minimal insight into side effects or constraints.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it could be slightly restructured to front-load the resource type more explicitly, though current format is acceptable.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description feels incomplete. It lacks context about optional filters (city, state), default behavior, or how results are ordered. An output schema exists, but the description still leaves gaps for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the parameter names. 'Free-text/semantic search' loosely describes the query parameter but does not explain how city or state filters work, or how the limit affects results. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 performs 'Free-text/semantic search over Indian community organizations & associations', specifying the verb (search), resource (community organizations & associations), and geographic scope (Indian). This distinguishes it from many sibling search tools for other categories like search_restaurants_by_text or search_events_by_text.

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 searching community organizations but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over other search tools (e.g., search_all) or when not to use it. While context clarifies the resource type, lacking 'when-to-use' or 'alternatives' reduces clarity for an AI agent.

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 full burden. It states 'free-text/semantic search' but fails to disclose key behaviors such as result sorting, pagination, search fields, or rate limits. This lack of detail limits an agent's ability to anticipate non-obvious 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, making it concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters; a longer description with structured parameter explanations would be more helpful. Front-loading is acceptable.

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 complexity (four parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what fields are searched or how results are filtered, leaving critical usage gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters ('query', 'city', 'state', 'limit'). Without explanation of valid values, format, or interactions, an agent cannot determine how to construct effective queries.

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 'Free-text/semantic search over Indian-American education & tutoring' clearly states the action (search) and the specific domain (Indian-American education & tutoring). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like 'search_restaurants_by_text' and retrieval tools like 'get_indian_education'.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_indian_education' for specific records) or mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints.

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?

The description discloses that past events are included, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it should also cover results format, pagination, or ordering. It does not mention read-only nature or any constraints beyond the scope.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be structured to include parameter hints or examples without being verbose.

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 four parameters undocumented and an output schema not described, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively. It lacks key details about parameter constraints and expected output, given the moderate 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 0%, yet the description provides no information about any of the four parameters (query, city, state, limit). It fails to explain their role or usage, making it difficult for an agent to construct correct inputs.

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 'Free-text/semantic search over Indian-American events (incl. past, for history),' specifying the verb (search), resource (Indian-American events), and scope (including past events). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event_details or search tools for other categories.

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 for searching events by text but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_all or get_event_details. No explicit context for when-not to use or comparison with siblings.

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. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as result format, pagination, or whether the search is purely semantic or keyword-based. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic action.

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 brief sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It could benefit from more structure, such as listing key parameters or usage notes, without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema exists but is not shown, the description does not indicate what the search returns (e.g., matching entities, details). With 4 parameters and no parameter explanations, the description is incomplete for effectively using the tool.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about parameters. 'query', 'city', 'state', and 'limit' are not explained (e.g., 'city' and 'state' as filters, 'query' as free-text). This leaves the agent with no additional meaning 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 clearly states the tool performs 'free-text/semantic search' over a specific resource: 'Indian-American CPAs, tax preparers & financial advisors'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_finance_details' and 'search_all'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_all' or 'get_finance_details'. The description only states the function without context on appropriate use cases 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?

Description states semantic search but fails to disclose behavioral details beyond annotations (none provided). It does not mention pagination, sorting, or the effect of optional parameters like city/state and limit on results.

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, concise but lacking structure. It could be more informative without increasing length significantly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits crucial context: it does not explain parameter behavior, filter usage, or result handling. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning to parameters. It mentions searchable fields but does not explain the purpose of 'query', 'city', 'state', or 'limit' parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs free-text/semantic search over Indian grocery stores, specifying searchable fields (name, region, store type). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by targeting groceries specifically.

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 searching Indian grocery stores via free text, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools like get_indian_groceries for retrieving details.

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 provided; description carries full burden. It discloses that results are ranked by certified LCAs, lists result fields (certified count, median_wage, top_titles, etc.), and notes data is aggregated from U.S. DOL. This provides substantial behavioral insight, though it omits mention of read-only nature or any limits/restrictions.

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 plus a compact list of result fields. Front-loaded with clear purpose. No redundant or unnecessary information. Every sentence is informative.

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?

Despite no output schema, description lists key result fields and explains ranking. It covers filters and data source. Lacks mention of pagination or behavior of the limit parameter, but overall sufficient for a simple search tool.

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 has 0% description coverage; description explains that 'query' filters by employer name and 'state' by 2-letter worksite state. It does not describe the 'limit' parameter. Description adds meaning for two out of three parameters, compensating for lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states it searches US employers that sponsor H-1B visas, specifies the target audience (Indians-from-India), and distinguishes from sibling tools focused on community services (restaurants, salons, etc.). It clearly names the resource (employers) and action (search) with unique scope.

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?

Description implies usage context (employment visa sponsorship search) and differentiates from sibling tools by domain, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The unique focus on H-1B sponsors makes usage clear without explicit 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 no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the type of search. It does not mention whether the tool requires authentication, rate limits, or what side effects occur. The output schema is not referenced in the description.

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 extremely concise (12 words) and front-loads the core function. However, it could sacrifice some brevity for additional clarity on parameter roles.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not mentioned, the description lacks completeness. It does not clarify the tool's scope (e.g., does it cover all legal or only immigration?), nor does it provide enough context for effective use among many similar search tools.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implies the query parameter is the main free-text input but does not describe how city, state, or limit affect results. The description 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 clearly identifies the tool as a free-text/semantic search for Indian-American immigration attorneys and law firms, distinguishing it from sibling tools targeting other categories. However, the term 'semantic' could be more precise, and the specific resource is well-defined.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_legal_details for specific entity lookups or sibling search tools. No context is given for when not to use it.

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 exist. Description does not disclose behavior such as returned data format, pagination limits, or any side effects. The minimal description fails to add transparency beyond the basic function.

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and clear.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (unseen), the description should explain parameters and return value behavior. It does not, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 0%. Description does not explain any of the four parameters (query, city, state, limit). No meaning added beyond schema names.

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?

Description clearly states verb (search), resource (Indian-American healthcare professionals), and method (free-text/semantic). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_professional_details and other search tools that target different categories.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_all or get_indian_professionals. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context provided.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'free-text/semantic search' but does not detail what the search returns, pagination, or any side effects. With output schema existing, the description could at least hint at the result structure.

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 is front-loaded with the key action. However, it is overly minimal and could include slightly more detail without being verbose.

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 presence of many sibling search tools and 4 parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the optional parameters city/state, the limit default, or the output schema. While an output schema exists, the description does not refer to it, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the tool name. Parameters like city, state, limit are not explained. The description is too brief to aid parameter understanding.

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 specifies a clear verb 'search' and resource 'Indian-American realtors & real-estate agencies'. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by targeting real estate specifically.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The description implies it's for real estate searches, but doesn't clarify when to use this over more specific get_details tools or other search_by_text 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?

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals ranking by relevance and featured listing ordering, but omits details about pagination, rate limits, error behavior, or result structure (though output schema exists).

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, no filler. First sentence front-loads purpose, second adds constraints and ordering behavior.

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 description covers core search functionality but omits the limit parameter. With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, but the missing parameter explanation reduces completeness.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It covers query, city, and state meaning, but fails to describe the limit parameter (default 25). This is a significant gap.

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 performs free-text search over restaurant name/cuisine/region, ranked by relevance. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like search_apparel_by_text or get_restaurant_details.

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 explicitly mentions optional constraints on city and state, and notes that featured listings are surfaced first. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like get_restaurant_details or 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or result format. The term 'semantic search' hints at capability but does not fully disclose 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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it omits essential parameter and usage information, making it minimally adequate.

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?

Although an output schema exists (reducing return value explanation burden), the description fails to cover input semantics, usage context, or behavioral norms, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (query, city, state, limit). Even the required 'query' parameter is left undefined, forcing the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 performs 'free-text/semantic search' over a specific resource ('Indian beauty salons'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_indian_salons' (likely a directory) and other search_by_text tools for different categories.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_indian_salons' or other search tools. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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. It only mentions 'free-text/semantic search,' implying a read operation, but lacks details on pagination, limitations, or other behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence, but it is overly minimal given the tool's complexity and lacks substantive information beyond 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations. It fails to provide enough context for correct usage, especially among multiple sibling search tools.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations. While parameter names (query, city, state, limit) are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify semantics like query format or default behavior.

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 'Free-text/semantic search over Indian community services,' clearly indicating the verb (search) and resource (Indian community services). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'services,' but it does not explicitly differentiate from other category-specific searches.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_all or other category-specific search tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, how results are paginated or sorted, or any rate limits. Only the basic search behavior is implied.

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 succinct sentence, but it omits critical information that could be included without becoming verbose. It earns no extra credit for brevity at the cost of completeness.

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 four parameters (one required) and many siblings, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the returned output (though there is an output schema), nor does it cover edge cases or advanced usage. The agent may be underinformed.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not clarify the role of 'query', the optional filtering by 'city' and 'state', or the default 'limit'. The agent receives no additional insight beyond the schema structure.

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 identifies the tool as a free-text/semantic search over Indian studios (yoga/dance/music). It specifies the resource type and distinguishes it from listing tools like 'get_indian_studios'.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus other search_*_by_text tools for different categories, nor does it give any exclusions or context for preferred use.

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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or whether it returns full details. A one-line description is insufficient for transparency.

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 concise with one sentence, no fluff. However, it lacks structure that could aid scanning, e.g., bullet points. It earns its place but could be more informative.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not cover essential context like parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or usage scenarios. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (query, city, state, limit). The agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters effectively.

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 does free-text/semantic search over Indian sweets shops and bakeries, which is a specific resource and operation. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_sweets_details and other search_*_by_text tools by specifying the domain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.