find_best_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions ranking strategies and a data requirement for 'fastest', but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what 'top results' means quantitatively. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that packs essential information: the action, resource, ranking strategies, and a specific data requirement. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it appropriately concise and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with ranking strategies), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose and strategies but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and 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 fully documents both parameters (q and strategy). The description adds marginal value by explaining the ranking strategies in more detail (e.g., 'cheapest', 'top-rated', 'fastest (requires health data)', 'best (composite score)'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for services by keyword and return the top results ranked by strategy.' It specifies the action (search), resource (services), and ranking strategies. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_services' or 'discover_services' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the 'fastest' strategy requires health data, which is helpful context, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_services', 'discover_services', or 'list_services'. No explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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