Find service providers by trade and/or area. Area can be a city name or region name. Returns business info: name, trade, trades, region, company size, target audiences, website, and description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | City, region, or postal code the provider must serve, e.g. 'København' or '2100' | |
| trade | No | Trade to search for, e.g. 'VVS-installatør' or 'Elektriker' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds a list of returned fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, limits, or auth needs. It provides some context but minimal beyond the annotation.
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 purpose, second lists return fields. No redundancy, efficient, and 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?
The description lists return fields but lacks details on whether results are an array, ordering, or behavior when both parameters are omitted. Without an output schema, it should be more explicit about the response structure.
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% with parameter descriptions. The description reiterates that area can be a city or region name, which adds slight clarity but does not significantly enhance semantic 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 clearly states the tool finds service providers by trade and/or area, using a specific verb 'find' and resource 'providers'. It differentiates from siblings 'get_provider' and 'list_trades' by indicating it searches for multiple providers based on criteria.
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 use for searching by trade/area but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not guidance. It lacks alternatives or exclusions, so it meets only a basic clarity level without explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool performs a distinct function: finding providers by criteria, fetching details by ID, and listing available trades. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in camelCase, making the purpose clear and predictable.
Three tools are perfectly scoped for a service provider index, covering search, detail retrieval, and trade listing without bloat or deficiency.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain: discovering available trades, searching for providers, and retrieving full details. No obvious gaps.