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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description corroborates the closed-world scope by calling it the public directory. It adds real context beyond the annotations: results are capped at 10, include a public profile link, and contact details are never returned because contact happens through the profile page. Pagination behavior beyond the cap is not explained.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope and facets first, then the Portuguese-language caveat, then return-shape and privacy behavior. No filler and no repetition.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it searches, what comes back (up to 10 results with profile links), what is deliberately withheld (contact details), and the domain quirk (Portuguese specialties, mostly Brazil). Nothing needed to call it 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the Portuguese-language guidance and the online/in-person enum. The description's Portuguese specialty examples and Brazil-centric framing largely restate what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline rather than adding new semantic detail.

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 (find personal trainers in the public Trainer Connect directory) plus the searchable facets (specialty, name, city/state, modality) and the geographic scope. An agent can distinguish it from the singular get_trainer sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly frames this as a directory search with the criteria that drive it, and gives one concrete routing hint (omit location for online coaching). It never explicitly names get_trainer as the alternative for fetching a single known trainer, so the when-not condition is left implicit.

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