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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description goes well beyond them: pagination model (20 per call, total, offset), a three-level result ordering rule (books_online, then partner, then daily rotation), and an explicit disclaimer that ordering says nothing about quality. That ordering disclosure is the kind of thing an agent cannot infer and would otherwise misread as relevance ranking.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns and the filter inputs, then packs the non-obvious ranking behavior into two compact sentences. No filler or restated tool name; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 usefully explains the return shape (total, offset paging, phone fallback for non-bookable salons) and the ordering. It stops short of covering edge cases such as what happens if zip and city/state are both supplied, or the default page size when limit is omitted.

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 83%, so the schema already documents zip, city, name, state and offset semantics. The description mostly restates those constraints ('Up to 20 per call', 'offset pages through the rest') without adding format details, defaults, or precedence rules beyond the schema's own 'zip is used instead of city/state' note.

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+resource (find nail salons on Lacquer) with the exact scoping inputs (US city + state or ZIP) and an optional name filter. The listing nature ('Up to 20 per call', 'total' says how many match) makes it clearly a search/list tool rather than a single-record lookup like get_salon.

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: the description explains that salons with books_online=true are bookable and others are listed with only a phone number, which hints at when this tool's results are actionable, but it never says when to reach for this versus get_salon or check_availability, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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