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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it states only names and badges are returned, contact info is never exposed, and empty results carry a guiding message. It omits ranking/limit behavior and any auth or rate-limit context, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then privacy and empty-result behavior in tight sentences. The final "Any business type..." clause is somewhat listy but still earns its place by signaling scope breadth.

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 compensates by stating what is returned and what an empty result looks like, plus the privacy boundary. The remaining gap is the undocumented "want" parameter and result-count behavior, which is notable but not fatal for a lookup tool.

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 50%: q and location are described in the schema, but the integer parameter "want" (1-10) is unexplained in both schema and description, and category's semantics beyond the enum are not addressed. The description adds only "any business type," which does little to disambiguate the undocumented parameter.

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?

"Find signed-up Sirfus pros for what a person needs" is a specific verb+resource with a clear qualifier (completed signup, confirmed phone). It distinguishes itself from sirfus_request_pro, but never mentions the sibling sirfus_trades, so an agent can't tell how this differs from a trades-oriented lookup when the description itself says "Any business type: trades...".

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use sirfus_request_pro when no pro is listed (empty results) or when the person needs contact. That is a clear when-to-use/when-to-switch rule. It does not, however, give any exclusion versus sirfus_trades, leaving one live ambiguity.

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