LocalHelpNow

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description earns credit for adding non-obvious behavior: result ordering (Google rating weighted by review count), the exact fields returned, and the extra match link. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any rate or freshness caveats.

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 what is returned before the secondary match link. Dense but every clause carries information; only mild wordiness in the ordering parenthetical.

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 output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields (business name, rating, review count, town, profile page) and the ordering rule, which is exactly what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around the limit default interaction and the nature of the match link.

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 100%, so the schema already documents town, state, trade (with plain-word synonyms) and limit. The description reinforces the one-trade/one-town scoping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: 'local pros LocalHelpNow lists for one trade in one town', which is far more specific than a restated title. It never names a sibling (e.g. how_to_get_a_pro or list_service_areas), so differentiation is inferable but not stated.

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 by 'for one trade in one town' and by the trailing note that a match link is returned 'instead', which gestures at the get-a-pro flow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative tool, leaving routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and world-scope profile is covered. The description adds substantive context: it enumerates the sections in the returned answer (direct answer first, price tables with source and date checked, repair-or-replace rule with limits, FAQs) and asserts every price range carries provenance. It omits failure behavior, e.g. what an invalid trade/slug pair returns, but on balance adds real value beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single sentence and thus compact, but it is front-loaded on payload internals instead of the retrieval action, and the itemized sections read more like a spec dump than an agent-facing summary. A tighter opening such as 'Return the single answer for a given trade and slug' would earn more.

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 output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the returned content and provenance model, which is genuinely helpful. However, it omits expected failure cases (nonexistent trade/slug), and it never links to the sibling that produces valid slugs; 100%-covered parameters reduce the need for param detail. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%: the schema documents both params, including that slug comes from list_answer_topics and that trade is e.g. 'hvac'. The description adds no syntax, casing, or format guidance for either parameter, so it earns the 3 baseline rather than more.

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 implies a retrieval of one answer but never clearly states 'returns one answer for a given trade and slug', and it spends most words on the shape of the payload rather than the purpose. It does not reference the sibling list_answer_topics from which the slug originates, leaving the routing relationship to the schema. An agent can infer read-a-single-answer, but the statement is indirect.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_answer_topics for discovery. The slug's schema description ('from list_answer_topics') is the only hint of workflow, and that lives in the schema rather than the description, so the description itself adds nothing about when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait: 'Quoted from the site' signals the content is a static, canned answer rather than live data. It still doesn't describe length or format of the returned text, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence lists the covered topics in a logical order with no filler, and the 'Quoted from the site' qualifier is efficiently appended. It is slightly list-heavy but every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only static-content tool with no output schema, the description covers what topics are addressed and the static nature of the source. The only gap is no hint about the shape or size of the returned text, which is minor given the annotations.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's enumeration of covered topics is content scoping rather than parameter meaning, but no compensation is required here.

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 enumerates the specific content the tool returns (vetting checks, non-guarantees, directory ordering, costs, dispute outcomes), which distinguishes it from find_pros (which actually finds pros). However, it never states the action explicitly ('returns information about' / 'answers'), leaving the retrieval verb implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance. Siblings such as how_to_get_a_pro and get_answer are semantically adjacent, and the description offers no routing rule to pick between them, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this correctly with 'Does not create a request: the homeowner enters their own details on the page.' It also adds the free-match and link-return context, which is beyond the structured fields, without contradicting 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?

Three sentences that front-load the purpose before the parameter behavior and the non-mutation caveat. Efficient and readable, with only minor redundancy between 'what LocalHelpNow does' and 'how the match works.'

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 read-only, output-schema-less informational tool, the description covers what it returns (a link), what the params do, and the key boundary that no request is created. It could add whether authentication or an account is needed, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: passing trade and area only prefills the request rather than executing a match, clarifying the parameters' effect. This is more than restating field definitions.

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 outcome: it explains the matching process and returns a link that starts a free match to one pro. It is distinguishable from find_pros (which presumably lists pros) by its 'how the match works + link' framing, though it never explicitly contrasts the two, 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 only implied: 'Pass trade and area to prefill the request' tells the agent how to call it, and 'Does not create a request' clarifies a boundary, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over find_pros or the other siblings. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds topical scope and trade grouping, which helps assess relevance, but it does not disclose pagination, return format, or other behavioral traits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and uses a compact colon list. It earns its place, though the lack of an explicit verb slightly reduces structural clarity.

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, and the description does not explain the return shape (e.g., list of questions vs. topic objects) or pagination. For a simple list tool, the content description plus annotations and schema is nearly complete, but the missing output detail leaves a gap.

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 100% for the single optional trade filter. The description's 'by trade' reinforces the grouping but adds no syntax or default behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 stands.

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 names the resource (every question the Answer Layer covers) and gives concrete content categories (what broke, fair price, repair/replace). It does not explicitly state a verb or differentiate from siblings like get_answer, so it is clear but not sibling-aware.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_answer, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is a browsing tool from the name and description alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return context (counts per town, directory page URL), but says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering for what could be a long directory-wide listing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering resource, return shape, and filters, with no filler. It is slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 no-required-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields (per-town counts and page URL). Only pagination/result-size behavior is left unaddressed.

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 100% and the trade parameter's schema entry is actually richer than the description, listing concrete values and plain-word synonyms. The description's 'Optional filters by trade and state' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (trades and towns with listed pros) and even previews the return shape (per-town pro counts, directory page URL), which sets it apart from find_pros at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 only implied: the tool reads as a coverage/browse listing, and the two optional filters are mentioned, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to find_pros for actual pro lookups. An agent can infer the intent but is given no exclusions.

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