search_service_providers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List/filter' implies a read-only collection operation, which is useful, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, result size limits, or any side effects. It is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundant restatement of schema details. Every word earns its place.

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 schema covers the complex filters and pagination well, and the resource is clear. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the one-line description leaves return format and default pagination behavior implicit, making it adequate but not complete.

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%, with limit, offset, search, filters, and ordering all documented, including detailed filter tree syntax. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond identifying the resource, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with specific verbs 'List/filter' and names the exact resource 'service providers', with parenthetical examples (auditors, legal and professional services firms) that make the entity type unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling search_* tools by target entity, even without naming them.

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?

Usage context is implied by the resource type: an agent can infer this tool is for service providers rather than funds, investors, or people. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the sibling search tools.

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