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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful context: the service is free to the person, contact requires consent, and a request id is returned. It omits any auth requirements, rate limits, failure modes, or what happens after the request id is issued.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences that lead with the action and the caller's benefit. Five brief sentences with no obvious padding, though the choppy one-clause-per-sentence style is slightly less scannable than a grouped structure.

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?

Covers the required-parameter workflow and states the return value in lieu of an output schema. Gaps remain for a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and two enums: timeline is never explained and name's role is left implicit.

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 50%, and the description restates the three required inputs (query, location, consent) plus the phone-or-email rule, which adds real value for the contact fields. However, name and timeline are undocumented in both places, and the large category enum is only handled by the schema's 'Omit to let Sirfus detect it.'

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 one verified local pro for a person,' and notes it 'Returns a request id,' which signals it creates a request rather than reading data. It does not name or contrast itself with the siblings sirfus_search or sirfus_trades, 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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger with a concrete example: 'Use this when someone says things like "find me a plumber in Tampa".' It also states the precondition of consent. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for lookup-style queries.

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