concierge.recommend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides recommendations ('receive a recommended sequence'), which implies a read-only, advisory behavior. However, it does not discuss data handling, limitations, or authenticate requirements. The core behavior is transparent, but additional context would improve clarity.

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 concise with three short sentences, each serving a purpose: setting the tone ('welcome mat'), stating the function, and highlighting the value ('fastest way to learn the whole menu'). It is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description provides an adequate high-level understanding of what to expect. However, the open-ended input and lack of parameter details or constraints make it incomplete for a fully informed call. The description covers the core interaction but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 input schema only defines an open 'arguments' object with no specific properties, and schema coverage is 0%. The description's instruction to 'describe your situation' gives a general sense of the input but lacks structural detail. It expects the user to figure out the content and format, which is minimally helpful for a tool with such a loose schema.

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 tool's function: 'Describe your situation and receive a recommended sequence of treatments.' It uses a specific verb-resource pairing and conveys that it is a recommendation tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings but the focus on 'recommend' and 'learn the whole menu' sets it apart from the more specialized sibling tools.

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 clear usage context by calling it 'the welcome mat' and 'the fastest way to learn the whole menu,' indicating this is the starting point for discovering treatments. It implies when to use it (initial orientation) but does not mention exclusions or explicitly name alternative tools for specific tasks.

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