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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (list with name, city, distance, price, rating, profile link) and the service coverage, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or geocoding, but the schema covers those details.

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?

The description is just two sentences: the first front-loads the main action and output, the second lists the service types. There is no wasted text, and the most important information appears upfront.

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?

Given that all 9 parameters are fully described in the schema and the description provides a clear summary of return fields, the tool is adequately contextualized. The description does not mention the relationship with get_service_types or the geocoding behavior, but these are either inferable or documented in the schema. Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema provides a description for every parameter (100% coverage), including enums for animal types and service types. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond that; it merely restates some service types in prose, which is redundant with schema. Therefore, the schema carries the semantic weight, meriting a baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching for available pet-sitters near a location in France. It specifies the returned data (name, city, distance, price, rating, profile link) and the service types covered, distinguishing it from sibling get_service_types which provides reference data rather than search results.

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 establishes the tool's primary use case: finding pet-sitters given a French location. It does not explicitly exclude any contexts or point to alternatives like get_service_types for service type reference, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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