LocalPro — Verified US Local Service Provider Data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies what data is returned (e.g., business description, services, pricing summary), how authentication affects output (with/without API key), and that contact details are available via listing_url. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but covers essential operational context.

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 front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then detailing return data and authentication effects. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined by combining some details about returned fields.

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 complexity (retrieving detailed provider data with authentication nuances) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains return values, authentication impact, and where to find additional data. It lacks details on error cases or pagination, but covers the essential context well for a read operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (niche_id and provider_slug) adequately. The description adds minimal value by referencing provider_slug from search_providers results, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed summary of a specific verified service provider', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_cities, list_niches, list_service_types, and search_providers which handle listing or searching rather than retrieving a specific provider's details.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get a detailed summary of a specific provider) and implies usage by referencing parameters from search_providers results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using search_providers for broader queries instead.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cities are 'grouped by metro area where applicable' with an example, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 concise and well-structured in three sentences. The first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidelines with a sibling tool reference, and the third adds contextual details with an example. Every sentence earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and some behavioral details (grouping by metro area). However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks information on return values, error cases, or performance characteristics, which could be helpful for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning optional filtering by state abbreviation, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., how 'niche_id' relates to 'list_niches', or examples of city slugs). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'List available cities and metro areas where verified providers operate for a given niche.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('cities and metro areas'), and scope ('for a given niche'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_providers' by explaining its role in discovering valid city slugs before calling that tool.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover valid city slugs before calling search_providers.' It names the alternative tool ('search_providers') and clarifies the workflow, making it clear this is a prerequisite step for filtering providers by location.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists directories and returns niche IDs, which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or error conditions. While it adds useful context about the purpose and output, it lacks details on operational behavior beyond the basic function.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context about usage and output. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second explains its role in discovery, the third provides examples of categories, and the fourth clarifies the output's importance. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the significance of its output. However, it could be more complete by detailing the return format or any behavioral constraints, but for a low-complexity tool, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter documentation in the description. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline score of 4 is given as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by explaining the tool's role clearly.

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 specific action ('List all available service directories') and resource ('LocalPro network'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_provider' or 'search_providers' by focusing on categories rather than individual providers. It explicitly mentions this is the 'starting point for discovering categories,' which sets it apart from tools that might filter or search within those categories.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: as the 'starting point for discovering what categories... are available' and notes that it 'Returns niche IDs needed for all other tools,' indicating it should be used before invoking sibling tools like 'get_provider' or 'search_providers.' This clearly defines its role in the workflow versus alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), provides context about niche-specific taxonomies with examples, and hints at prerequisite data (niche IDs from list_niches). However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or response format details, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and illustrative examples. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical context without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for an AI agent.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context adequately. However, the lack of output schema means the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., list format, pagination), which is a minor gap in completeness for a tool that outputs data.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the niche_id parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the need for valid niche IDs and giving examples ('coated-local', 'radon-local'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('List the valid service type categories') and resource ('for a given niche directory'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_niches or search_providers. It provides concrete examples (e.g., 'coated-local' has epoxy, polyaspartic) to illustrate the purpose beyond just the tool name.

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 when to use this tool ('Use this before calling search_providers with a service_type filter to ensure you pass a valid value') and names a specific alternative (search_providers). It also implies context by noting each niche has its own taxonomy, guiding usage relative to other tools like list_niches.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (provider name, rating, services, etc.) and coverage scope (major US metro areas), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or error conditions that would be important for a search tool.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states purpose and scope, second details return values, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying return format, geographic coverage, and prerequisite tools. However, it could better explain behavioral aspects like result ordering, default behaviors, or error handling to be fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the 9 trade categories (which relate to niche_id) and referencing sibling tools for valid values, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 searches for verified local service providers across 9 specific trade categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_provider (which likely retrieves a single provider) and list tools. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'providers' with explicit scope details.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use list_niches first to get valid niche IDs, and list_service_types for valid service_type values.' It also implies usage context by mentioning coverage of major US metro areas and referencing list_cities for city options.

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