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

Annotations already declare a read-only, closed-world lookup, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavior: commercial-only shops are filtered out unless segment='commercial', matching free repair guides are returned first, and each result carries a trust tier, distance, phone, profile link and Trust Card link. It does not describe ranking logic, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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 location and fallback guidance is front-loaded and useful, but the middle of the description is a 43-item enumeration of service keys that largely duplicates the service enum already present in the schema. The plain-language glosses add some meaning, yet the bulk is redundant and makes the actionable guidance harder to locate.

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 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden well: it covers input fallbacks, default trade and segment, filter scoping, and what each result contains. Only minor gaps remain, such as default limit behavior and what happens when no pros match.

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 coverage is 82%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining that 'trade' accepts plain words equivalent to 'service', that brand/appliance/problem are silently ignored for non-appliance trades, and that segment defaults to residential. These are interaction effects between parameters that the schema alone does not convey.

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 opening clause gives a specific verb and resource ('Find local service businesses near a US ZIP code, or a town + two-letter state'), which is clearly a location-based directory search. It distinguishes itself functionally from get_pro, get_pro_profile, and list_trades by being a multi-result proximity search, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 gives a concrete fallback rule: use town + state when no ZIP is known. It also states the exclusion condition for commercial-only shops and that brand/appliance/problem only apply to appliance trades. It stops short of naming alternative tools for lookups of a single known pro.

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