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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the returned fields (name, rating, certifications, etc.), Google Maps URL availability, and geographic coverage, which is good context. It doesn't explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect status, but as a 'search' tool, the semantics imply a safe query; a 3 reflects sufficient but not exhaustive transparency.

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 a single paragraph with purposeful front-loading: it starts with the action and scope, lists categories, then return fields, coverage, and prerequisites. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy.

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's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides strong coverage: return fields, niche categories, geographic scope, and prerequisite tool usage. Omissions like sorting, pagination, and city-optional behavior are minor for a search tool, making this fairly complete.

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 descriptions already cover all 4 parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that niche_id and service_type are validated via list_niches/list_service_types, reinforcing the schema's guidance. It doesn't add syntax details beyond that, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search for verified local service providers' and enumerates 10 specific trade categories, clearly identifying the action and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by framing this as the search tool while list_niches/list_service_types are referenced as prerequisite lookup tools.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use list_niches first and list_service_types for valid values, giving clear prerequisite workflow. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer get_provider, but the context is clear for a search scenario.

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