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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: interprets query parameters, returns ranked providers, and includes tips with reasons. It explains additional 'tips' feature beyond basic search, ensuring the agent understands the output.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by valuable detail on tips. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers input interpretation and output format (ranked providers with tips). No gaps for this complexity level.

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% with one string parameter. The description adds meaning by specifying that the query's natural language is interpreted for category, location, and urgency, and provides an example, going beyond the schema's brief description.

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 local services in free text, interprets category, location, and urgency, and returns ranked providers with tips. This distinguishes it from siblings like avropa_tjanst (ordering) or las_foretag (reading company info).

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 implies usage for finding services via free-text query, providing an example. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names provide context for differentiation.

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