agent-gateway

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool 'Returns' data, indicating a read-only operation. It does not mention any side effects, auth needs, or other behavioral traits, but the retrieval nature is sufficiently 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 a single, dense sentence that conveys the essential information without any filler. Every element (services, packages, pricing, durations, company facts) earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists the types of information returned. It could mention if the data is static or dynamically generated, but overall it is complete for a simple retrieval 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?

No parameters exist, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds value by detailing what the output includes, compensating for the lack of output 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 specifies the verb 'Returns', identifies exact resources (Relux Works services, packages with USD prices and durations, company facts), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'request_project_quote' which is for requesting a quote rather than retrieving pricing info.

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 when to use: to get pricing information, as opposed to requesting a quote (sibling). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative scenarios, leaving slight ambiguity.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the action is a write operation (submit inquiry), the response is asynchronous (human reply within one business day), and it requires real user consent and email. This adequately informs the agent about the tool's 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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and outcome in the first sentence and adding a critical usage condition in the second. Every word is necessary; no 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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage condition, asynchronous human response, and expected output (package and quote). It doesn't explain error handling or what to do with the response, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to understand the workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it does not explain how the summary or email will be used). The outcome mentioned is about the quote, not parameter details.

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 action ('Submit a project inquiry to Relux Works on behalf of a user') and the outcome ('A human replies...with a recommended package and a fixed-price quote'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_services_pricing' by specifying that this tool generates a custom quote via human response, whereas the sibling likely provides static pricing.

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 explicit conditions for use: 'Only call this with real user consent and a real contact email.' This tells the agent when to call and what prerequisites are required. It does not explicitly mention when to use the sibling tool, but the context makes the distinction clear.

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