rover_sitter_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it searches public data from server-rendered pages and returns a defined set of fields, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether results are paginated, any rate limits, error behavior, or that it is a read-only operation (though implied). No side effects or limitations are described beyond the basic search 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 description is two sentences, front-loading the main action and then detailing the return fields. It is efficient and free of fluff, earning a high score for conciseness while still conveying essential information.

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 7 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description provides a useful list of returned fields, which helps the agent anticipate results. However, it lacks details on pagination, result limits, and error handling, and does not address edge cases like empty results or ambiguous location input. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., location and service_type are implied as search criteria, but no format details or interplay are explained). It does not clarify edge cases like combined filters or the meaning of 'starting price'.

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 states a clear action ('Search Rover sitters and walkers') and specifies the resource (Rover's public listings) and the return value (normalized sitter summaries with listed fields). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rover_sitter_profile or rover_trainer_search, though the word 'search' implies a distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of rover_sitter_profile for fetching a single sitter's details or rover_trainer_search for trainers. The description does not state exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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