maideo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's purpose (checking service coverage and providing rates) and mentions a key financial detail ('gross, before the 50% tax credit advance'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and includes a crucial usage guideline in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage sequence, and key financial context. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., structured data vs. simple yes/no) and doesn't fully address all behavioral aspects, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 50% (only 'zip' has a description), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that the postal code is 'French' and that the output includes coverage status and hourly rate, which helps interpret the 'zip' parameter. However, it doesn't provide additional context for the 'prestation' parameter beyond what the enum suggests.

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 specific action ('Check whether Maideo serves a given French postal code and get the estimated hourly rate') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'Use this BEFORE get_quote'. It identifies the resource (French postal code) and outcome (coverage status and rate).

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this BEFORE get_quote'), establishing a clear sequence in the workflow. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'get_quote' by positioning this as a prerequisite check, though it doesn't explicitly mention other siblings like 'create_booking'.

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