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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the output limit (up to three) and the cost, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it creates or modifies data, what 'eligible' means, or any rate limits or authorization requirements. Significant behavioral aspects are left undisclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the core function and constraints. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy, scoring high on efficiency and readability.

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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a competitive sibling set, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral details needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool in varying situations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain the meaning of 'contractorCategory', how 'state' relates to 'zipCode', or what values are expected. The term 'region' is ambiguous and does not map clearly to the parameters, providing no added value beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 action ('Return'), the resource ('installer matches'), and a constraint ('up to three', 'for a region'). It is specific and understandable, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'find_local_installers', so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_local_installers' or 'submit_contractor_match_request'. It does not mention preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The cost hint is the only contextual clue, but it is not a usage guideline.

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