search_service_types

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool maps to POST /serviceType/search, is 'readonly-owner' (indicating no mutation and permission level), and returns IDs. This is more transparent than a bare description, though it lacks details on pagination, filtering semantics, or error behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It uses two sentences plus a compact endpoint and tier tag. Every element adds information without fluff, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description gives a clear purpose, endpoint, and return type (IDs), but with no output schema and 3 optional parameters, it leaves gaps in how to structure queries. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete for a tool with multiple optional filters.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or usage of typeIDs, category, or officeIDs. The examples of service types are not tied to specific parameters, so the description provides minimal value beyond the raw schema field names.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'service types', provides concrete examples (Quarterly Pest Control, Termite Inspection), and specifies that it returns matching IDs. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_service_types, which likely returns all service types, by emphasizing the search/filter behavior.

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 implies usage for filtering/querying service types by providing examples and stating it 'return[s] matching IDs', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when to prefer this over get_service_types. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given, so usage is only implied.

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