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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It warns 'Do not invent providers' and instructs to 'Present only providers returned by YloService', setting fidelity expectations. It also discloses the language-normalization behavior for user queries. This goes beyond a bare definition and meaningfully shapes agent behavior, though it doesn't address other traits like read-only safety or response filtering.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then covering usage trigger, examples, language handling, and reliability constraints. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple 2-parameter schema with 100% coverage and an output schema present, the description adequately covers purpose, usage scenario, language preprocessing, and output fidelity. There are no significant gaps that would hinder an agent from correctly invoking the 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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage with English-name requirements, so the baseline is 3. The description adds actionable guidance: normalize user requests into English before calling and reinforces that the parameter values should be English service and country names. This supplementary normalization instruction provides value 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 'Find local people and service providers listed on YloService', a specific verb plus resource. It goes on to give concrete examples (cleaners, plumbers, electricians) that make the tool's purpose unmistakable. Even without siblings to distinguish from, the purpose is fully and clearly stated.

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 states the trigger condition: 'Use this tool when a user wants to find someone who provides a local service, trade or skill in a particular country.' This gives the agent a clear basis for selecting the tool. No exclusions or alternatives are needed since no sibling tools exist.

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