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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that results are ranked and compact, that names and addresses are in Russian or Uzbek and should be quoted as-is, and that the is_bookable field drives what the agent can offer next. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficiently organized: a one-sentence purpose, a labeled WHEN TO USE block, and a compact results/behavior section. Every sentence adds actionable context, and the most important routing information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: when to use it, what results look like, the meaning of is_bookable, and how to handle localized names. The output schema is absent, but the description compensates by naming the critical result fields and downstream behavior.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add significant per-parameter meaning beyond the schema; it reinforces the general search intent but leaves parameter specifics to the well-documented schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Bronjoy's catalogue of service businesses in Uzbekistan by keyword, city and category.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and, by naming the downstream flow, distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on slugs.

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 'WHEN TO USE' block explicitly states the use case and says to start here, and it explains that every other tool takes the slug this tool returns. It also gives concrete decision guidance around is_bookable, routing to check-availability, request-booking-code, and book-appointment versus only describing and phoning.

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