armut_list_pros

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does at least imply a read-only browse operation and discloses an important behavioral bound ('the page lists up to 40', limit 1..40), which prevents pointless limit values. It does not cover pagination beyond the single page, whether results are ranked by rating, rate limits, or whether an unknown city returns empty versus error.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph with the resource description front-loaded and semicolon-separated per-parameter notes, so an agent can scan it quickly with zero filler sentences. The only waste is the enumerated list of return fields, which duplicates information already carried by the output schema.

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 three-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the resource, all three parameters with examples and bounds, and the page-size limit. Return values are covered by the output schema, so the field listing is a bonus rather than a necessity; nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all three params: service_slug gets a concrete example, city is marked optional with a slug example ('istanbul'), and limit gets an inclusive range tied to the underlying page size. The remaining gap is that the schema default of 10 for limit is not restated and there is no note on whether city accepts display names versus slugs only.

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 states a specific resource and scope: 'Top professionals for a service', and enumerates the returned fields (name, city/district, bio, rating, review count, profile URL). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (search_services, service_detail, faq, price_guide, trending_services), which all operate on services rather than professionals, although the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 is implied rather than stated: 'Top professionals for a service' plus an optional city filter tells an agent roughly when this fits, and the service_slug example ('ev-temizligi') shows the expected input style. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives for city-wide browsing, and no statement about what happens when the city has no matching pros.

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