service-provider-index

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

The description states it returns business info, which adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral traits like pagination, result limits, or exact matching semantics, which would be helpful for a search tool.

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, front-loading the action and briefly listing return fields. No redundant or unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 search tool with two optional parameters, read-only, and no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns. It could be improved by mentioning that trade and area can be combined, but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minor clarification that area can be a city or region name, but this largely overlaps with the schema. No significant new semantics beyond schema descriptions.

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 title: 'Find service providers by trade and/or area.' It specifies the resource (service providers) and action (find), and the list of returned fields distinguishes it from siblings like get_provider (single provider) and list_trades (trade list).

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 the tool can be used by trade and/or area but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. No guidance is given on when not to use it or which sibling to choose for specific needs, only implied by the context of the sibling names.

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, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds 'full details' but does not elaborate on what those details include. 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?

Single sentence with no extraneous words, clearly and efficiently communicates the tool's core function.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and read-only annotation, the description adequately covers its purpose. 'Full details' is slightly vague but acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 describes the 'id' parameter and the description provides an example ('dk-001'), adding useful formatting guidance 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'full details for a single provider', and the method 'by its ID'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like find_providers (likely for multiple providers) and list_trades (different 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?

The description implies usage when a specific provider ID is known and full details are needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use or direct to alternatives, but the sibling context provides implicit guidance.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is already set. The description adds that it returns all trades and service categories, which is consistent. However, it does not mention if the list is sorted, paginated, or limited, but given zero parameters and likely small set, this is minor.

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: first states the action with examples, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given low complexity (0 params, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the essentials. It could explicitly state the output is a list of strings, but examples suffice. The usage advice adds 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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, so baseline 4 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 clearly states it returns all trades and service categories, with concrete examples (VVS-installatør, Elektriker). It distinguishes itself from siblings by suggesting to call this first when unsure of the trade term, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Call this first if you are unsure which trade term to use when searching.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies alternatives (find_providers, get_provider) for known terms.

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