search_services

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's 'read-only' restatement is redundant, but 'no API key needed' adds auth context the annotations do not cover. It also discloses ordering (highest rating first), result shape, and the pagination limit ('only the first page of matches is returned'), which are genuine behavioral facts beyond structured fields.

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?

Four sentences, all front-loaded with the action and scope before the routing advice. The return-field enumeration is slightly long but justified because there is no output schema. Every sentence does work; nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing return fields, result count, sort order and page-limited behavior. Combined with annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretation by mapping the three filter facets and clarifying that price can be a fixed price, hourly rate or custom — which matters for how min_price/max_price are read. It does not document limit or default behavior beyond what the schema already states, so it is a moderate rather than large lift.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search individual service listings'), pins the granularity ('one result per listing'), and names the exact facets (keyword, category, price). It is immediately distinguishable from search_workers, get_recommended and get_service_details, which it names 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?

Gives an explicit selection rule ('use this when you know what kind of work you need and want listing IDs to act on') and then routes three sibling tools by condition: search_workers to compare providers, get_recommended for plain-language ranking, get_service_details for a single full listing. Nothing is left to inference.

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