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

The annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about output contents and the meaning of 'public', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination defaults, rate limits, or authentication requirements. No contradiction exists.

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 main function and filter options are front-loaded in one clear sentence. The certification details add length, but they are relevant to the 'public' category and not 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, and output expectations well. Pagination and limit details are left to the schema, which is acceptable. The only slight gap is the lack of explicit guidance about when to prefer this over list_services.

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 schema covers all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by enumerating category values and especially by explaining that 'public' covers public works and government contracts, plus certification/eligibility details that make the filter meaningful.

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 lists commercial construction services with specific output fields (slugs and citable page URLs). The 'commercial' + 'public-works' framing distinguishes it from the broader sibling list_services even though no sibling is named.

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 explains the optional category filter and gives useful context about the 'public' category, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool over list_services or other sibling list tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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