rover_trainer_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the data is public, sourced from Rover's server-rendered training search pages, and describes the normalized fields returned. This gives an agent a reasonably complete behavioral picture, though it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or result limits.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and the return shape summarized in the second sentence. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the overall length and structure are appropriate for the amount of useful detail provided.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), this description is largely complete. It names the search input and lists the key fields returned, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though an example result structure or pagination note would make it fully complete.

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 the single required parameter 'location' is already documented as free-text address, city, or zip code. The description adds little beyond the schema's parameter documentation, so the baseline of 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 'Search Rover dog trainers' and then specifies that it searches Rover's public dog trainer listings by location, returning normalized trainer summaries. This clearly identifies the verb, resource, scope, and output, and the phrase 'dog trainer' differentiates it from the sibling rover_sitter_search.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to search Rover's public dog trainer listings by location. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as rover_trainer_profile or rover_sitter_search, but the intended use case is strongly implied by the wording, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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