get_smart_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose the main computation (combining child/family/financial/language inputs to calculate net costs and rank a shortlist), but it says nothing about output format, failure modes, missing-data behavior, or whether it is read-only.

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?

A single sentence conveys a lot of information without wasted words, and the outcome is stated clearly. It lists many inputs, making it slightly dense, but no sentence or clause is extraneous.

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?

This is an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only gives a high-level summary. An agent is left without guidance on the shortlist's return fields, how optional income/benefit inputs interact, defaults, or what to do when only childAgeYears is provided.

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 already documents 100% of the parameters, so the baseline applies. The description adds conceptual meaning by grouping several parameters into a cost-calculation and tailoring workflow, but it doesn't define formats or interplay beyond the 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 names a concrete deliverable—a tailored shortlist of preschool centers with calculated net out-of-pocket costs—and states the inputs used. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with sibling search tools, so it doesn't fully earn a 5, but the core action and resource are unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: when a personalized, cost-aware recommendation is needed rather than a plain directory search. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to siblings like search_sf_childcare or check_elfa_eligibility.

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