angi_list_trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, and the description adds useful context: it reads Angi's public sitemap directly and requires no browser bridge, which helps an agent understand operational constraints. It does not detail the return format, but for a simple list operation this is sufficient.

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, each earning its place: purpose with examples, usage guidance naming the downstream tool, and a relevant implementation detail. Front-loaded with the action verb and no filler.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema annotations, the description covers what it returns (list of slugs), how to use it, and a practical scenario. The mention of 'no browser bridge required' preempts environment questions. Given annotations provide safety guarantees and the schema covers the filter, the description is complete for invocation.

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?

The single parameter 'contains' is fully documented in the schema with a clear case-insensitive substring filter example. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List every trade slug Angi publishes,' including a count and concrete examples. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it resolves free-text trades to the slug needed by angi_search_pros, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Call this to resolve a free-text trade to the slug angi_search_pros needs.' This names a related sibling and a clear prerequisite, though it does not articulate when not to use it or offer alternative tools for similar tasks.

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