nmlp_schedule_pickup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: every submission triggers real outreach to a single human operator (Josh). This is valuable for the agent to understand the irreversible, human-in-the-loop nature. However, it does not disclose response behavior (e.g., confirmation, error handling).

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a critical warning. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 12 parameters, 6 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the outcome of the submission (e.g., confirmation ID, follow-up), prerequisites (e.g., user account, cost), or geographic scope (NMLP likely refers to New Mexico but not stated). The agent lacks key context to use the tool correctly and safely.

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 only 17% (2 of 12 parameters documented in schema). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema. Parameters like donorName, addressStreet, specialNotes remain unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on their format or purpose.

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 verb ('Submit a real free book pickup request') and the resource ('to NMLP'). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all informational lookups (e.g., nmlp_check_coverage, nmlp_search_titles), by emphasizing the action of scheduling a pickup.

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 context: every submission triggers real outreach to a human operator, and warns against speculative or unconsented requests. This implies when to use (real, consented requests) and when not to (speculation). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for different purposes.

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