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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, any side effects, or limitations. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded with the trigger phrase 'Use when.' It is concise and free of fluff. However, it is somewhat under-specified, which limits its helpfulness, but the structure itself is appropriate.

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 the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the trigger scenario but omits input semantics, output expectations, and any behavior details. A tool of this complexity needs more contextual information to be fully usable.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (area, query, urgency). It does not explain what these inputs mean, how they should be formatted, or how they affect the tool's behavior. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema definitions.

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's function: identifying which TaskMan of London service fits a user's job. It also provides context about vague home-service requests, which helps distinguish it from other tools like check_service_area or list_service_types. However, it could be more explicit about the output format, which prevents a perfect score.

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 when the user needs help identifying which service fits their job,' giving a clear trigger condition. It further clarifies the target scenario ('especially for vague home-service requests in London'). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for a basic use case.

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