search_brokersSearch for business brokers (agents) on Venturu by location, name, languages, and more. Returns verified brokers with email and phone redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| county | No | ||
| zipCode | No | ||
| countryCode | No | ||
| languageIds | No | ||
| neighborhood | No | ||
| opportunityScore | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: results are 'verified brokers' and 'email and phone redacted.' This goes beyond the annotations by informing the agent about output content and data policy.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Search for business brokers'), and each sentence earns its place by conveying purpose and key output characteristics. No redundant 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?
Given the tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but omits pagination/sorting behavior and details on the return structure beyond redaction. However, the core functionality is clear, and annotations cover safety aspects, making this reasonably complete for a search 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'location', 'name', and 'languages', which loosely maps to city/state/county/zipCode/neighborhood/countryCode, name, and languageIds. However, it does not explain page, limit, sort, or opportunityScore, leaving these ambiguous. The description covers the main search facets but not all parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for business brokers (agents) on Venturu with specific filters (location, name, languages). It also notes the return includes verified brokers with redacted contact info, distinguishing it from similar tools like 'search_businesses' and 'get_broker'.
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?
The description implies usage context—use this tool when you need to search for brokers—but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are present but not referenced. This is clear context without explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: brokers vs businesses, search vs get vs contact, and supporting list tools for categories and languages. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (contact_broker, get_business, search_brokers, list_languages). The only deviation is who_am_i, which is a common idiom for identity checks but does not follow the same pattern, making it a minor inconsistency.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a business marketplace. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the search-detail-contact workflow, and there are no redundant or unnecessary tools.
The toolkit covers the full user journey: discovering categories/languages, searching for brokers/businesses, viewing details, and contacting them. It also includes authentication verification. No obvious gaps or dead ends prevent successful completion of typical tasks.