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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are human-vetted, ranked with featured listings first, and neither price nor ETA is pre-listed, with an explicit instruction not to invent them.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then return-shape, then a compact Args block that maps one-to-one onto the five parameters with no filler. The trailing pricing caveat is short and load-bearing, and the prose is appropriately sized for a 5-param tool.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields (id, name, city, services, rating, verified/featured flags, phone, profile URL), covers every parameter, and flags the pricing/ETA limitation. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 carries the entire burden and does: location format (5-digit ZIP preferred or city name), service with seven example values, urgency examples, budget as free-text, and limit bounds (1-20, default 5). This compensates completely for the empty 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+qualifier ("Find vetted, licensed locksmiths near a location") and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by positioning itself as the first step and deferring pricing/ETA to request_quote. An agent can tell this apart from get_locksmith, request_quote, and book_job without opening any 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?

"Use this first when a user needs a locksmith" gives an explicit entry-point condition, and the closing note routes the pricing step to request_quote. It stops short of naming exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_locksmith for a known provider id), so it is clear context rather than a full decision tree.

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