find_listings

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.