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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the annotations cannot: that results are ranked 'best matches' and include prices, booking links, and the matched worry text. It stops short of saying how many matches are returned or what happens on no match.

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, front-loaded with the core action, with the inline examples earning their place by showing the query style. The closing clause 'and the homeowner worries they matched' is slightly awkward and could be tightened, but there is no filler.

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 three parameters, one required, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one missing piece an agent needs: what the response contains. It leaves minor gaps around result count, ranking basis, and behavior when nothing matches, which matter for a search tool but are not blocking.

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% (state code format, project_type enum values, and the concern field are all documented), so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline of 3 applies. The description's example worries add a little signal about the granularity expected for 'concern', but nothing about state or project_type 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find Kolo Verify services') plus the matching semantics ('that answer what a homeowner is worried about'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_services and get_service by being a semantic free-text match, but it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied: the phrase 'in their own words' with three example phrasings signals that this is the tool for vague, natural-language homeowner concerns rather than catalog browsing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over list_services, nor any exclusion or fallback guidance.

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