start_crestron_trial

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it starts a trial, reports trials_remaining and expiry, returns a buy link when exhausted, and clarifies that underlying AV keeps working. This is comprehensive.

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 and front-loaded, with the main action stated first. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, when to use it, limits, return values, and side effects. It leaves no 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?

Since there are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by explaining the output (trials_remaining, expiry, buy link) and operational context, exceeding the baseline.

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 starts a free 7-day trial on a processor, with specifics like no payment needed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'activate_crestron_license' by focusing on trials and mentioning when to use it (unlicensed or lapsed trials).

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 advises using the tool when the processor is unlicensed or a trial has lapsed, and it mentions the trial limit of 3 per processor. It indirectly differentiates from license activation but lacks an explicit 'do not use when' statement.

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