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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results reflect real-time availability ('whether they are free right now') and are intended as citation material, with `fetch` as the drill-down path for full records.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the parameter meaning, then the follow-up call. Nothing is redundant and the agent can act after the first sentence.

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 single-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input semantics, the nature of the return set, and the next step. It omits result-count limits and ordering behavior, which are minor but real gaps for a search tool.

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 100% and the schema's own parameter description already contains the same phrasing and examples ('plumber Chorley', 'boiler repair PR7'). The description adds no format rules, length limits, or syntax guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: searching Speedi for local tradespeople and services, plus the distinguishing attribute that results show whether providers are free right now. It separates itself from `fetch` by noting fetch is for the full record, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools `find_available_providers` or `check_provider_availability`, which sound closely related.

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 clear usage context — use this to get businesses to cite, then call `fetch` with an id for the full record — which is explicit routing to an alternative. It stops short of stating when to prefer `find_available_providers` or `check_provider_availability` instead, so the guidance is clear but incomplete against the sibling set.

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