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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior context: the scope (30 service categories, US only), the per-service count in the response, and the availability prerequisite of "public locals" — none of which are in the annotations or schema.

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 lead is front-loaded with the decision-relevant phrasing and the alternative framing, then the operational details. Slight redundancy between the quoted example questions and the later "can I get X done in Y?" restatement costs it a point.

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 no output schema, the description usefully discloses that the return is a per-service count, and it defines required vs optional inputs and their format. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result; only the exact result shape (category list structure) is left implicit.

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% and both params already document lowercase hyphenated formatting with examples. The description restates the same format rules ("full name, lowercase, hyphens: 'new-jersey'") and the omit-city-for-state-level rule, so it adds little beyond the schema — the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: checks which of the 30 service categories have public locals in a given state or city, returning a count per service. This is clearly distinguishable from search_local_workers (which finds individuals) and list_service_categories (which enumerates categories), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Provides concrete user-question framings ("can I get my gutters cleaned in Orlando?") and positions itself as "useful before searching," which implies the ordering relative to search_local_workers. It does not name the sibling explicitly or state when NOT to use it, keeping it short of a 5.

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