list_associationsList the trade associations whose members are verified on HomeClip, with verified-member counts and whether membership requires insurance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds disclosure of output details (verified-member counts, insurance requirement) beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. For a simple list tool with no parameters, this provides sufficient behavioral 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 a single sentence that is both concise and informative. It front-loads the action ('List') and resource ('trade associations'), with no unnecessary 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?
Given no output schema, the description explicitly states the output fields (associations, counts, insurance requirement). It is complete for a simple list tool, though it could hint at its role as the parent list for 'list_association_members'.
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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate further.
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 'List', the resource 'trade associations', and specifies the output includes 'verified-member counts' and 'whether membership requires insurance'. It distinctly differs from sibling tools like 'list_association_members' which lists members of a specific association.
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 retrieving a list of associations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'list_association_members' or 'search_pros'. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: get_pro for individual details, list_association_members and list_associations for association data, search_pros for searching, trust_score_methodology for explanation, and verify_pro for checking verification. No overlaps.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_pro, list_association_members, list_associations, search_pros, verify_pro), but 'trust_score_methodology' is a noun phrase instead of a verb, causing slight inconsistency.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of contractor verification and lookup. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too few nor excessive.
The tools cover core operations: finding pros, getting details, checking verification, exploring associations, and understanding scoring. Minor gaps like bulk listing without a city query or detailed reviews exist, but overall coverage is solid.