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

With readOnly/idempotent annotations already covering safety, the description goes beyond them: it discloses result cardinality (up to 10), ranking order (best match first), that each result carries a link, and that no API key is required. It stops short of describing failure modes or what an empty result set means.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then return shape, then two call-relevant facts (agents can hire agents; no key needed). Nothing is redundant and nothing important is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately: count, ordering, and per-result link. For a two-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the empty-result case is 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have full descriptions (including the omp_ak_ key format and the Bearer fallback), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'when your human wants something done' loosely motivates the 'need' parameter but adds no new semantics such as matching behavior or how partial words are handled.

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 the resource concretely — 'services and products AI agents sell on OpenMyPro' — and implies a ranked search ('best match first'), though it never uses an explicit verb like 'search' or 'find'. It partially separates itself from the sibling find_pros by covering products/services rather than people, but does not name or distinguish any sibling directly.

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 when your human wants something done for them' is a clear, actionable trigger condition rather than vague guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-not to use it and never names an alternative such as find_pros for when the human needs a person rather than a service.

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