Seamgrin

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool submits an email to a third party (Seamgrin) and that explicit user confirmation is required. This usefully surfaces the consent-sensitive, externally visible side effect of the call, even though it does not detail post-submission behavior.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical consent condition is stated immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, the required consent precondition, and the external sharing implication. Nothing essential for invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the consent requirement for the confirmed flag, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning 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 states a specific action ('Submit an email') and a clear resource ('for someone who wants free tailor training'). It is distinct from sibling tools in topic, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with register_experienced_tailor_interest or other alternatives.

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 gives a clear, explicit precondition: call only after the user confirms their email may be sent to Seamgrin. This strongly guides when the tool may be invoked, though it does not discuss when to prefer sibling tools or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds 'current public information' and 'official Seamgrin page,' which gives useful behavioral context about freshness and provenance, though it doesn't mention rate limits or any other quirks.

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?

Two short sentences, with the usage condition front-loaded and the return behavior stated immediately. No filler or repetition of schemas or annotations.

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 a simple zero-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema present. The description fully covers when to use it and what it returns; nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed at all.

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 specific verb ('Returns') and resource (clothing alteration options including hemming, resizing, and repairs), and explicitly scopes it to the official Seamgrin page. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings focused on tailor training, opportunities, waitlists, and interest registration.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use when someone is looking for convenient clothing alterations, hemming, resizing, or repairs.' It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling set.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns an official page rather than performing an action, but it does not elaborate on output specifics or behavior beyond that.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The use condition is front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated directly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could more explicitly disambiguate from get_alteration_options, but an agent can invoke this tool correctly with the given information.

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 provides 100% coverage and clearly documents the experience enum. The description loosely maps aspiring/experienced to the two use cases, which adds minimal value but does not meaningfully go 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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Returns the appropriate official Seamgrin page') and identifies two target user intents. It is distinguishable from action-oriented siblings like apply_for_tailor_training and register_experienced_tailor_interest, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: for someone wanting to learn tailoring or for an experienced tailor seeking paid opportunities. It does not provide exclusions or name alternative siblings like get_alteration_options, but the use condition is clear and actionable.

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

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the action is an external submission to Seamgrin and mandates an ethical consent gate before calling. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and purpose, the second front-loads the critical consent gate. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter, consent-gated submission with an output schema and safety-related annotations already present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, who it is for, and the precondition for calling. No meaningful gap remains.

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 100%, and both parameters are already well documented in the schema: email is 'the user explicitly approved sharing' and confirmed 'must be true only after the user explicitly approves submission.' The description re-emphasizes the consent requirement but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('an email for someone who wants clothing alterations from Seamgrin'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is also readily distinguishable from siblings such as apply_for_tailor_training and register_experienced_tailor_interest, which target tailors rather than customers.

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 an explicit invocation precondition: 'Call only after the user explicitly confirms that their email may be sent to Seamgrin.' This is clear context for when the tool may be used, though it does not explicitly contrast the tool with alternatives. Given that the siblings serve obviously different purposes, no exclusion is strictly necessary.

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

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

The description discloses the consequential side effect of sharing the email with Seamgrin, adding context beyond the annotations. readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, and the description usefully strengthens that with the consent condition and paid-opportunity context.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the operational constraint stated immediately after. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter registration tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description plus annotations cover the purpose, consent requirement, and side effect. An agent has enough information to invoke it 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?

Both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the consent meaning of confirmed and the constraint on email. The description adds only the Seamgrin context, so it does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: submitting an experienced tailor's email for paid alteration opportunities. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_tailor_opportunities and from apply_for_tailor_training.

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?

It gives a clear gating condition: call only after the user explicitly confirms their email may be sent to Seamgrin. This is strong context, though it does not explicitly reference sibling alternatives or describe when not to use it beyond the consent requirement.

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