thumbtack_resolve_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the tool asks Thumbtack externally and canonicalizes via redirect. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, a concrete example, and a one-line usage instruction. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only resolver, the description covers what the tool does, how it behaves, when to use it, and implies the return value (the canonical slug). There is no output schema, but the purpose sentence is sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description's example illustrates the service parameter's semantics but does not add meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Resolve'), a resource ('loose service name'), and the exact output ('canonical Thumbtack slug'), with a disambiguating example ('plumbing' -> 'plumbers'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which search/get pros or perform GraphQL/health operations.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use before assuming a slug is right.' It does not name alternatives or give exclusions, but the sibling tools are functionally distinct enough that no competing choice needs to be ruled out.

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