describe_autofyi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by specifying the content coverage (business rules, tool order, excluded admin endpoints) but does not describe the actual output format or any other behavioral traits. This is adequate but not rich, hence a 3.

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, readable sentence: 'Explain the AutoFYI business rules, safe tool order, and deliberately excluded admin endpoints.' It is front-loaded with the verb 'Explain' and lists three specific content areas without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it addresses. It specifies the three key educational components (business rules, safe tool order, excluded admin endpoints) and, combined with the annotations, gives the agent sufficient context to invoke it correctly. No additional information is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to describe, the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to invent parameter details, though it also adds no parameter-specific value because none exist.

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 uses the specific verb 'Explain' and clearly identifies the resource: AutoFYI business rules, safe tool order, and deliberately excluded admin endpoints. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on client catalog, billing, or job preparation operations. The scope is unambiguous and informative.

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 this tool: to understand business rules, the safe order of operations, and which admin endpoints are not exposed. It provides clear context for a new user or agent needing orientation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or 'when not to use', though the unique explainer role among operational siblings makes this less critical.

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