thumbtack_resolve_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the mechanism — Thumbtack is queried and canonicalisation happens via redirect — which explains why loose or imprecise names work. It does not mention failure behavior for unresolvable names or any rate limits.

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 short sentences with the purpose and example front-loaded and the usage cue trailing. No filler, no restatement of the title or name.

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 read-only resolver with no output schema, the description conveys the return value implicitly (a canonical slug) and the mechanism. It leaves open what happens when a name cannot be resolved, but the essential contract for calling the tool correctly is present.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the note that zip does not affect the resolved slug. The description adds only the qualifier "loose" for the service input, which is marginal value over the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (service name → canonical Thumbtack slug) and makes the transformation concrete with a worked example ("plumbing" -> "plumbers"). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which fetch pros, reviews, or raw GraphQL rather than canonicalising a slug.

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?

"Use before assuming a slug is right" gives a clear triggering condition for the tool. It does not name a specific alternative tool or describe when-not to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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