NC Wedding Guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get structured details,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, error handling, response format, or behavior when the listing is absent. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the parameter source without any filler. Every word contributes to agent understanding.

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 read tool with two parameters and an enum, the description covers the main use case and parameter source, but lacks information about the response structure (no output schema) and does not differentiate from request_vendor_contact. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more context about expected return values would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by linking both parameters to the output of search_nc_wedding_directory, telling the agent exactly where to obtain valid values. However, it does not explain the format of slug or the meaning of category beyond the schema's enum.

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 retrieves structured details for a single venue or vendor and references the source of its parameters (search_nc_wedding_directory). This distinguishes it from the sibling search tool (listing) and the contact tool (requesting contact info) by the specific action and resource.

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 instructs the agent to use the category and slug returned by the search tool, establishing a clear prerequisite and workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with request_vendor_contact or state when not to use this tool, so no exclusions are given.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool records high-intent contact interest (a side effect) and that it does not deliver the message, only returns contact info. This is a significant behavioral disclosure, though it does not mention any persistence details or what happens to the recorded interest.

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, front-loaded with the core action and return, and the non-forwarding caveat is clearly stated. No filler or redundant text.

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?

The description explains the return and the non-forwarding behavior but omits details about how to construct the request (category/slug semantics, message formatting, optional parameters). With 7 parameters and no output schema, an agent needs more guidance to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 29% (client_id and event_date have descriptions), and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. The required category and slug are not elaborated, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving an agent uncertain about what values to provide.

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 records high-intent contact interest and returns the listing's public email plus a prepared wedding inquiry. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_nc_wedding_vendor, search_nc_wedding_directory) which retrieve directory data, while this one handles contact requests.

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 explains that NC Wedding Guide does not forward or deliver the message, so the agent must use the returned email or mailto URL. This is a clear when-not-to-use instruction, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, leaving some inference about when to choose this tool over them.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results include canonical URLs and planning details, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, read-only nature, or any potential side effects, though the tool is inherently a search. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 tight two-sentence statement that leads with the core purpose and immediately gives the output. There is no filler or repetition. Every word 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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the search dimensions and return format but omits pagination details (offset/limit behavior) and does not reference sibling tools for selection. It is functional but not fully complete for an agent to call it without consulting the schema for all parameter semantics.

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 only 40% (city and query have descriptions; limit, offset, and category do not). The description adds meaning by mentioning 'category, city, or free text,' which maps to category, city, and query. It does not explain limit or offset, and category's enum is present but not described. Since coverage is low, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps for two parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), the resource ('North Carolina wedding venues and vendors'), a scope ('nearly 4,000'), and the search dimensions ('by category, city, or free text'). It also notes the return type ('canonical listing URLs and structured planning details'). This fully distinguishes it from siblings that fetch a specific vendor or request contact.

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 usage for discovery, but does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling tools get_nc_wedding_vendor or request_vendor_contact. There is no 'use this when you need to find, use get when you have a specific vendor' guidance. Context is present but exclusions or alternatives are not named.

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