BuilderVet — NSW builder licence & risk history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: data provenance (official public registers, archived longitudinally by BuilderVet) and an explicit limitation statement. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the facts represent and what they do not establish.

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 dense yet well-structured: action first, followed by returned content, provenance, usage guidance, limitations, and an example. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description is complete: it names all returned data categories, explains the data source, gives an example, and clearly states limitations. An agent can confidently invoke the tool and interpret the result without additional documentation.

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 already documents slug with an example and its source ('Builder slug from search_builders'). The description reinforces this with a second example and clarifies 'one builder by slug', but adds little semantic value 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the factual risk profile for one builder by slug') and enumerates precise data points (NSW licence class/status, ACN/ABN, ASIC status, event count, source flags). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_builder_timeline and search_builders by listing exactly what it returns.

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 provides explicit use context ('Use for identity and dated evidence') and exclusions ('does not establish safety, financial health or complete coverage'), and instructs to obtain the slug from search_builders first. It does not explicitly name get_builder_timeline as the alternative for chronological events, but the parenthetical 'not disciplinary finding count' partially signals the boundary.

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 goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, disclosing the event payload shape, severity levels, source registers, archived status, the 50-event limit, and important interpretive cautions about removal notices and exclusive access. This is rich behavioral context that an agent needs to use the result correctly.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerates event types, result attributes, caveats, limit, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema and no nested objects, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It covers event content, severity, source, archiving, limit, and gives a concrete example. The caveats about removal notices and exclusive access further round out the context.

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 100% for the single slug parameter, and the schema description already says it is a builder slug from search_builders. The tool description uses the slug in an example but does not add meaning beyond the schema beyond illustrating the expected format.

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 identifies the tool as fetching a dated event timeline for a builder by slug, enumerating the event types. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state how it differs from get_builder_risk, but the timeline vs. risk distinction is reasonably inferable from the content.

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 through 'by slug' and the example, and it notes the slug comes from search_builders in the schema. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_builder_risk or when not to use it. The guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true; the description adds that search is loose, requires minimum 2 characters, and what the output contains (licence status, slug). No contradictions.

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?

Concise yet comprehensive: describes purpose, provides example, usage tips, and links to sibling tools. No unnecessary sentences.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and how to use the output (slug) with other tools. Covers all 2 parameters adequately.

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 100% but description adds value by explaining query parameter usage (e.g., try different names) and postcode as an optional NSW filter, plus the minLength constraint.

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 searches for builders by name with optional postcode filtering, and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it returns slugs for get_builder_risk and get_builder_timeline.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (searching builders), includes an example, advises trying both trading and legal names, and explains that the output slug feeds into related tools.

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