verify_proCheck whether a contractor (by business name) is a verified, Trust-Scored professional on HomeClip. Returns matching pros with their scores. Use this before recommending or booking a contractor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Optional city slug to narrow the search. | |
| name | Yes | The contractor's business name. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool returns matching pros with scores, but does not go beyond annotations to disclose further behavioral traits like rate limits or result stability.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return value, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence 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?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value ('matching pros with their scores'). The tool has low complexity and the description covers all essential aspects.
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. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema.
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 action ('Check') and the resource ('contractor by business name'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_pro' and 'search_pros' by focusing on verification and trust scores.
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 says 'Use this before recommending or booking a contractor,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is strong.
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.