hcp_api_notes

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the answers come from a table compiled into the server, no API call is made, the call 'costs nothing and cannot fail', and the table's content is characterized (non-existent documented routes, silently ignored writes, misleading field units). One tension: annotations declare openWorldHint=true while the description insists this is a purely local, side-effect-free read, though readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint are all consistent.

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 and the documentation-vs-reality distinction are front-loaded, and the trigger conditions follow before the input guidance. It runs five sentences and repeats the no-cost/no-failure point alongside the local-table point, which is mild redundancy, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 one-optional-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what it returns conceptually, when to reach for it, how to phrase the query, what omitting the parameter does, and that it has no side effects or cost. Nothing required for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the same idea ('ask in plain words - a topic, a route, a field name, or the thing you were trying to do') and adds example phrasings, but does not meaningfully extend what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up what the Housecall Pro API actually does for a given topic') and immediately draws the contrast with its own subject matter: published documentation versus verified behaviour. This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools (report rendering, business profile get/set), so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives three explicit trigger conditions ('BEFORE concluding that something cannot be done, before retrying a route that returned 404, and after any write that reported success but looks like it changed nothing') plus the omit-topic escape hatch. This is the when-to-use/when-not guidance that most definitions lack, and it routes the agent to this tool rather than to blind retries.

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