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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing what the payload contains: a full page set, Google's cited rules on doorway pages/people-first content/structured data, and a taxonomy mapped to the trade's 2022 NAICS industry.

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 deliverable before the supporting detail. The first sentence is dense with an enumeration but every item is informative, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value and does so thoroughly, listing page types and the accompanying cited rules. It is only mildly incomplete in omitting any note about determinism/variation across trades, but nothing essential to calling the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning, echoing the 'up to 20 cities' cap that corresponds to the cities array's maxItems limit and noting the taxonomy is curated per trade, without adding syntax or format detail 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?

The description opens with a concrete verb+resource ('List the standard website page set for a home-service trade') and then enumerates the exact page types returned, so an agent knows precisely what it produces. It never names or contrasts a sibling tool, so it falls short of the 5 criteria despite the high specificity.

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 statement of when to call this versus list_trades, service_area, or seasonal_demand, and no prerequisites are given in the description (the need for a trade id from list_trades appears only in the schema). The agent can infer the scenario from the content, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are offered.

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