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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the source of geo_id (shovels_address_search) and that job-value fields are returned in both cents and dollars, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not discuss pagination behavior or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the required inputs and format, then a clarifying note, then a concrete example call. It is slightly long because of the full example, but every element is functional and nothing is filler.

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 14-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers required inputs, geo_id provenance, and the monetary-unit quirk of the response. Remaining gaps are minor: pagination flow and the shape of returned contractor records are left to the schema rather than explained.

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 all 14 parameters are already documented in the schema (including units for contractor_min_total_job_value). The description only restates the required geo_id and date range and the YYYY-MM-DD format, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search US construction contractors') plus scope ('scoped to a location, with license, work history and aggregate job value'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It names shovels_address_search as the geo_id source, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling shovels_permits_search, leaving some ambiguity about which search to pick.

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?

It states the mandatory inputs (geo_id plus permit_from/permit_to) and where geo_id comes from, which is implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to the other Shovels search tools, so the agent must infer selection from sibling names.

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