angi_search_pros

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it lists the returned rating dimensions, states the 10-per-page pagination, tells how to walk pages, and flags the absence of a zip-code filter. This gives the agent practical expectations about output and constraints.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying unique information: purpose/return fields, slug resolution, pagination, and a location limitation. No redundant filler; the most important purpose is front-loaded.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return value structure, pagination, parameter preparation, and a key limitation. The sibling context is clear, and the schema covers the `compact` and `state` parameters, so nothing essential for invoking correctly appears 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by instructing the agent to resolve trade and city slugs via the listing tools first, which directly informs how to construct valid parameter values. It also reinforces that city is the sole location dimension, complementing the schema's city slug example.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Find home-service pros on Angi for a trade in a US city.' This distinguishes it from siblings like angi_get_pro (single pro), angi_list_trades, and angi_get_reviews. The description also enumerates the returned data fields, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 instructs the agent to resolve `trade` and `city` slugs using angi_list_trades and angi_list_cities before calling, which is clear procedural guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as 'use angi_get_pro for a specific pro' or mention when not to use this tool, but the context is ample for an agent to select it correctly.

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