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 output fields (name, rating, review count, certifications, etc.) and includes a caveat ('Google Maps URL when available'). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no results are found, leaving a modest gap.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose, return fields, coverage, and prerequisite calls are presented in logical sequence. The long list of categories is necessary context for a niche-specific search tool, so it earns its place.

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 output schema, the description is nearly complete: it details the return payload, coverage limitations, and prerequisite sibling tools. It lacks explicit error/empty-result behavior, but that is non-critical for a read-only search 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pointing to list_niches and list_service_types for valid parameter values, and by explaining that city and service_type act as filters. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search for verified local service providers') and enumerates 10 trade categories, making the tool's scope unmistakable. It also lists all return fields, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_provider (single provider) and list_niches/list_service_types (metadata lookups).

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 instructs agents to 'Use list_niches first to get valid niche IDs, and list_service_types for valid service_type values,' providing direct cross-tool usage guidance. It also notes geographic coverage ('major US metro areas'), setting expectations for when the tool is appropriate.

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