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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: prices are public and checked by AITeamGuide, and it enumerates the returned fields including the checked date and source page, which helps the agent understand data freshness.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and followed by filters and return fields. There is minor redundancy, such as the parenthetical notice about checked prices, but no significant waste.

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 five optional parameters, no required inputs, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It also describes return fields, which compensates for the absent output schema.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description restates the filter concepts but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Search) and resource (AI agents and receptionist products) plus the filter dimensions, so the tool's function is clear. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings such as cheapest_ai_agents or get_agent_pricing, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

The description lists the available filter mechanisms (free text, job category, free plan, max monthly price), which implies when to use this tool. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over cheapest_ai_agents or get_agent_pricing, nor any exclusions.

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