Arranged Wedding & Event Marketplace

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose freshness ('real-time') and that rates are 'confirmed', which is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema. It omits the auth/permission implications of the token and what happens when quotes are still pending or expired.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-formed sentence with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Slightly dense with stacked qualifiers ('3-venue', 'client token') but nothing is wasted.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of return-value and safety information. It conveys the conceptual return (status + confirmed rates) but not the shape of a 'pending' vs 'confirmed' response, nor any auth or rate-limit expectations for a live status check.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents the clientToken with a format example ('cqt_...'). The description only restates 'using the client token' without adding syntax, sourcing, or failure semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status and confirmed rates for an existing 3-venue quote request'), making it distinguishable from request_curated_quotes which creates the request. It never explicitly names the sibling it complements, so an agent must infer the pairing from 'existing'.

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

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for an existing ... quote request' implies this is a follow-up to requesting quotes, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no polling advice, and no named alternative among siblings like request_curated_quotes or whoami.

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; 'Check' and 'live' imply a non-mutating, real-time lookup, but no explicit safety profile, auth requirements, or rate limits are stated. It does earn credit for enumerating the returned data fields, which partially substitutes for the missing output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key scope ('venue capacity suitability... in Gauteng') arrives immediately. It is dense with listed fields but every clause contributes 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?

For a read tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the enumeration of returned data is necessary and present. However, all five parameters are optional, and the description never explains the behavior when called with no filters or how 'capacity suitability' is evaluated against guestCount.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the enums and examples are already documented. The description adds only the framing that lookup can be done either by specific venue or by celebration criteria, which is a modest value-add over 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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('venue capacity suitability, catering rates, hire fees, layout options, quote availability') scoped to Gauteng, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_venue_details or check_quote_status, whose territory it partially overlaps.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'for a specific venue or celebration criteria' hints at the two lookup modes (slug/venueId vs. eventType/suburb/guestCount), but the agent is never told how this differs from find_venues, get_venue_details, or check_quote_status.

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 and does well: it discloses the result cap ('up to 10'), the provenance and neutrality of ratings ('unedited Google ratings'), and that pricing details are returned. It stops short of stating ranking/sort logic, behavior on empty results, or any auth/rate 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the search scope and filter axes front-loaded ahead of the return-value sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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

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

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what comes back (up to 10 venues with ratings and pricing). All inputs are covered by a 100%-coverage schema, so the only gaps are behavioral edge cases rather than missing invocation-critical information.

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 all five parameters including both enums are already documented with examples, and the description adds little beyond restating the filter axes. The only marginal additions are framing budget as an 'envelope' and calling layout a 'setting', which do not materially extend 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search and filter ... venues') with a clearly bounded domain (verified Gauteng event/celebration venues) and enumerates the filter axes. An agent can tell this is the discovery/search tool, distinct from get_venue_details and request_curated_quotes.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing — this is the search step that produces a curated shortlist before drilling into details or requesting quotes — but the description never says when to prefer it over get_venue_details or request_curated_quotes, nor what to do when zero results match. The context is clear enough to infer, but no explicit routing guidance 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 the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' signals a read operation and the listed fields add useful context about what is returned, but auth requirements, rate limits, and side-effect guarantees are not addressed.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no preamble or waste. The enumeration is somewhat long, but each listed field helps clarify the return content in the absence of an output schema.

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 read-only detail-fetching tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong guidance by enumerating the returned fields. It could be slightly more complete by explaining parameter selection or access requirements.

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 both slug and venueId are already documented in the schema. The description restates that the venue can be identified by slug or ID but does not clarify whether the parameters are mutually exclusive or how to choose between them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb-plus-resource pattern: retrieve details for a specific venue by slug or ID. It clearly distinguishes this from search-oriented siblings like find_venues, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for fetching a specific venue once slug or ID is known. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over check_venue_availability, find_venues, or request_curated_quotes, and no exclusions are stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that coordinators are contacted via email/WhatsApp, that an escrow quote review session is created, and that a client-facing review URL is returned. It omits idempotency/duplicate-submission behavior, rate limits, and failure modes, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by side effects and return value. Zero filler.

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

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

For a 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description usefully explains the return value (client review URL) and the external side effects, which the schema cannot convey. It leaves gaps around authentication, duplicate-submission handling, and what happens if a venue declines.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all 10 parameters, including the 1-3 venueIds constraint and enums. The description's 'up to 3 shortlisted venues' merely restates the schema and adds no new semantic detail on date, budget, or layout fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Submit) and resource (consolidated rate & availability request) with explicit scope: up to 3 shortlisted Gauteng venues. An agent can immediately distinguish this write/notify action from siblings like check_quote_status or find_venues.

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 premise that venues are already shortlisted implies the tool comes after find_venues, but this is left to inference. There is no explicit 'use when / don't use when' guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid venue IDs obtained from find_venues), and no note on how it relates to check_quote_status for follow-up.

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 the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the result is scoped to the authenticated caller's profile or environment identity, but it omits whether auth is required or what happens when unauthenticated, and there is no output schema to cover return fields. That is meaningful but incomplete disclosure for a zero-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing is wasted, though 'for the Arranged platform' is low-value padding.

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

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

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema identity tool, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level. It could be stronger by naming the shape of the returned identity or auth-failure behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb ('Return') and resource ('authenticated profile or environment identity'), so an agent knows this is an identity-lookup tool. Sibling names (venues, quotes) are entirely unrelated, so no differentiation is needed, but the phrase 'environment identity' is slightly ambiguous about what exactly is returned.

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 implied use is clear — call this to determine which identity the current credentials represent — but the description never states when to use it (e.g., before permission-sensitive operations) or any conditions/exclusions. Usage is left to inference.

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