Hark Tech repair policies

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world tool. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the covered policy areas, assessment prices, exclusions such as no BGA reballing or phones/tablets, turnaround, warranty, and postage rules.

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?

It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and uses a compact enumerated structure with no filler. The long colon-delimited list is dense but readable, though slightly less crisp than a shorter two-sentence definition.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies enough detail about the policy contents an agent will receive. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly does not invent 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 identifies the resource as Hark Tech repair policies and enumerates the specific policy areas covered, so an agent can tell it is a policy retrieval tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_service_info or search_repair_services, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

It explicitly says to use it to answer process questions accurately, giving a clear usage context. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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