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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds the important behavioral fact that this is a resolver feeding price tools, but it omits result format, ranking, or matching behavior (e.g., fuzzy vs exact, partial names).

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?

Two dense sentences with no waste, front-loading what is searched and then why it matters. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Covers scope, the input concept, and the downstream workflow purpose, which is the key thing an agent needs. No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain return structure or how to use the resulting citySlug, leaving a small gap.

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%, with both query and lang already documented including examples, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Search) and resource (Quebec cities, regions, and gas stations) and names the output token (citySlug). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_cities or get_city_prices.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to resolve a user-mentioned place to a citySlug before calling the price tools. That sequencing guidance is strong, but it does not name which price-tool sibling to proceed to or mention when not to use it.

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