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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the read-only guarantee ('can never change verification status'), the ordering behavior (VERIFIED ranked first, pending ranked last), and the machine_ready:false flag on unverified rows. It omits pagination, rate limits, and whether results are truncated by the default limit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each clause carries substantive information about ranking and labelling. It is somewhat redundant with the near-verbatim input-schema description, which costs 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 and no annotations, the description compensates by explaining the shape of the response (verification labels, ranking order, machine_ready flags, endpoint health), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. The read-only guarantee covers the missing safety annotations.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, including the verified_only default and the city/trade/limit semantics. The description restates the verified_only meaning but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find service businesses in the dfwmetro.net directory for booking') and scopes it to a named directory. It does not name the sibling find_verified_listings, which overlaps heavily with the verified_only:true mode, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being routed explicitly.

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 offers one actionable usage cue ('Pass verified_only:true for the strict VERIFIED-only shelf') and frames the intent as booking-related discovery, but never says when to choose this tool over find_verified_listings, whose purpose appears to be exactly that shelf.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it is strictly read-only ('can never surface unverified businesses and can never change verification status') and it enumerates returned fields (booking_url, machine-booking capability, endpoint health). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavior and then routing guidance, with no filler sentences. It is slightly dense across four sentences but each one carries distinct 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: verified-only scope, immutability of verification status, and the shape of each result. It could say more about result volume or ordering, but nothing essential is missing.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the verified_only:true example for the sibling tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (find VERIFIED service businesses) and scopes it to the dfwmetro.net directory for booking. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling find_listings by noting it is the legacy verified-only path, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'new integrations should prefer find_listings with verified_only:true,' and tells the agent which field to use for which flow ('use booking_url for human-style booking flows; use capability endpoints only when present'). Both the when-to-use and the alternative are named.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that submissions start as NOT_YET_VERIFIED, go through human review, that the server pre-checks license format, and that trade is auto-assigned. It omits what happens on duplicate submissions of the same business (idempotency) and any rate limits, which are real behavioral concerns for a write tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the hard requirement, then the optional-parameter guidance; every sentence is substantive. It is a single dense paragraph and re-states some schema-documented parameter rules near-verbatim, which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 an 18-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the verification lifecycle, the critical booking_url constraint, and the highest-value optional fields. It does not describe the response returned (submission id, status echo) or duplicate handling, which are the remaining gaps.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most fields. The description goes beyond it by explaining the concrete effect of key optional params — street_address 'drives the exact map pin,' starting_price_cents renders publicly as 'from $X', price_note is a qualifier, and it supplies real license_number examples per trade.

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 precise verb and resource ('Submit a DFW service business to the dfwmetro.net verified directory') and immediately scopes what counts as valid, making it unmistakable against the read-only find_verified_listings/find_listings siblings. An agent knows exactly what this tool does from the first clause.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and what-disqualifies: booking_url must point at a real scheduling flow, and quote forms, contact forms, phone-only and login-gated flows 'fail verification.' It also gives the precondition sequence (find the real street address BEFORE submitting) and when license_number is expected, which is unusually actionable guidance.

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