statefarm_roadside_assistance

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, but it only lists service types and capabilities. It does not mention that requesting service may trigger a real-world dispatch, require a policy number, incur costs, or that the tool can track an existing request. This is a significant gap for a tool that can perform consequential actions.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the service types efficiently. Minor redundancy exists ('roadside assistance' and 'roadside services'), but overall it is tight and readable.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context for a multi-action tool with seven parameters. It does not explain what happens after a request, what check_coverage returns, or that track_service exists. The missing track_service action alone is a notable omission.

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 high at 86%, with most parameters already described with action-specific context. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond repeating service type names that are already in the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 tool as handling State Farm roadside assistance with a specific list of service types, distinguishing it from the sibling tools (quotes, claims, payments, etc.). However, it omits the 'track_service' action, which is part of the schema, so the full scope of what the tool can do is not completely captured.

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 implies the tool should be used for roadside assistance scenarios, and the sibling tools are clearly in different domains, so an agent could infer when to use it. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which action to choose in which situation, leaving some ambiguity around check_coverage vs track_service.

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