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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are ordered by the site's published score, but omits other relevant behaviors such as pagination, default result count, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 with no filler. It efficiently conveys purpose, location, primary filters, and ordering.

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 annotations, no output schema, and low parameter description coverage, the description is too thin for a search tool with four parameters. It does not explain the financing filter, the limit parameter, or what the returned company records contain.

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 25%, and the description mentions only city and service filtering. The financing and limit parameters receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving meaningful filter and result-size semantics undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: finding licensed HVAC/mini split contractors around Austin TX. It also names the primary filters (city, service) and result ordering. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_company or price_benchmarks, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to search for contractors by city and service. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_company, price_benchmarks, or request_mini_split_quote, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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