Search marketing agencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds context about the tool being a search with filtering and returning a list, which aligns with and slightly enriches the annotation hints. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise, front-loading the purpose and immediately stating filters and returns. The 'WHEN TO USE' section is clear and separate. No unnecessary words.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality: it returns top matches with specific attributes. It mentions default limit implicitly. Could specify ordering or pagination, but not essential for basic use.

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%, so the description does not need to add much. The description mentions filterable parameters (query, service, country, etc.) but does not deep dive into format or behavior beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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?

Description explicitly states it searches a directory of 47,000+ marketing agencies with specific filters (query, service, country, etc.) and returns top matches with location, rating, reviews, profile link. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the use case: listing vs recommendation vs detail.

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 explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section that contrasts with match_agencies (for recommendations) and get_agency (for full detail). Tells the agent to use this tool for browsing or filtering when the user wants a list to explore.

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