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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. On top of that, the description adds concrete behavioral details: results are ranked and include name, rating, response time, and profile tag, which is useful beyond annotations.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler; the purpose, search criteria, and return fields are front-loaded and each sentence adds 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?

Adequate for a basic provider search: no required params, and description gives examples, search dimensions, and output fields. However, with no output schema and several optional params undocumented—especially query—an agent cannot fully determine all valid invocation patterns.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for seven parameters. It only broadly clarifies 'category and/or location'; query and limit are not addressed, and individual params like radiusKm and locationName are left underspecified.

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?

States the verb 'Search', the resource 'Tewdy service providers', gives concrete examples, and specifies filtering by category and/or location. This clearly distinguishes it from detail-lookup siblings like get_provider_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?

Provides a clear use context: find providers by category and/or location, returning a ranked list. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly compare with get_provider_details, but the intended usage is evident.

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