Find a Hark Tech repair service and price

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

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the result cap (five), the exact per-service fields, the two pricing models (fixed with deposit credited, and assessment/assessment_then_quote), turnaround in bench and door-to-door terms, warranty, exclusions, and booking_url. It also flags the in_scope=false behaviour and the no-address-until-paid constraint, which an agent could not guess.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every clause earns its place given the absent output schema, but the pricing paragraph is a dense single sentence that is harder to parse than it needs to be, and the return-value detail arrives before the argument guidance.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned, what each pricing type means, what is excluded, and how booking works. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret the result 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does with concrete examples for both parameters — device ('PS5', 'Nintendo Switch OLED', 'Samsung TV main board') and symptom ('stick drift', 'no signal on HDMI', 'dead, no power'). The required/optional split is reinforced because symptom defaults to empty.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Match') and resource ('Hark Tech's published mail-in repair services') with the exact scope (device + fault). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling get_repair_service_info, leaving the agent to infer which to call for detail versus discovery.

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 gives explicit exclusions: 'in_scope is false for phones, tablets, earbuds, appliances and medical devices', plus 'Mail-in only: there is no drop-off and no address until a booking is paid'. That is strong when-not-to-use guidance, but no alternative sibling tool is named for out-of-scope or detail requests, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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