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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the result set contains contact details, and per-result flags (quotable/bookable) determine whether request_quotes or booking with guide prices and next free times is possible. With no output schema, this disclosure of the return shape is the main value add, though it does not cover result ordering, empty results, or coverage outside Australia.

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 purpose and geographic scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence is dense but every element (contact details, quotable, bookable, guide prices) tells the agent something actionable. The parenthetical trade list is slightly redundant with the enum but still aids scanning.

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 four-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, what comes back, and what the returned flags enable downstream. The gaps are modest, mainly limit behavior and failure/empty-result handling.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates only partially: it names example trades ('plumbers, electricians, air conditioning, locksmiths') that map onto the trade enum and frames job/suburb as the search pair. It says nothing about the limit parameter's meaning beyond the schema's 1-10 bound, nor about what a plain-words job string is matched against.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find local trades businesses in Australia') plus the scoping inputs (job, suburb) and the category coverage. It also implicitly separates itself from request_quotes by explaining that the quotable flag gates that follow-up action, so an agent can tell the two apart without reading either schema.

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 what the quotable and bookable flags mean and points at request_quotes as the downstream action, which implies when to search versus when to request quotes. However, it never states explicitly when to use this tool instead of get_listing or when a search is unnecessary, so the routing is inferred rather than declared.

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