daysmart_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does signal that the tool is a reference resource containing screens and a sign-in link rather than a mutating operation. However, it never states what is actually returned (prose guidance? structured steps?), whether authentication to the external system is implied, or that it changes no state in DaySmart.

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 sentences with the coverage scope front-loaded and the prioritization instruction last, so the agent gets value immediately. "its screens" is slightly clipped phrasing but no sentence 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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter help tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers what domain knowledge it holds and when to invoke it. The remaining gap is the return shape, which matters more here precisely because no output schema exists to explain 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 100% — the single optional `task` parameter is already documented as "What you want done in DaySmart, in your words." The description adds no further meaning about how to phrase the task or what happens when it is omitted, so the schema-based baseline of 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?

The description states a specific resource — a DaySmart how-to guide covering appointments, clients, pets, sales, screens, and the sign-in link. That distinguishes it in kind from the sibling action tools (daysmart_click, daysmart_open, daysmart_read), though it never explicitly says it is informational rather than an action, leaving the separation implicit.

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?

"Call this first" gives an explicit, unambiguous sequencing instruction, which is the key usage decision for a guide tool. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternatives and states no when-not-to-use condition (e.g., when a direct action tool should be preferred).

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