search_walkers

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 this is a search operation that returns walker cards with specific fields, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no walkers are found.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence explains what the tool does and its main parameters, while the second describes the return format. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and return format. However, it lacks details about authentication requirements, error conditions, pagination, or how results are sorted/filtered, which would be helpful for a search operation.

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 all 4 parameters. The description mentions the three main parameters (location, date, service_type) but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: searching for available dog walkers on a specific website using location, date, and service type criteria. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'dog walkers', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'view_walker_profile' or 'book_walk'.

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 context by mentioning search criteria, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'view_walker_profile' for detailed information or 'book_walk' for booking. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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