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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the result is a short profile with slug and URL, and full bio plus upcoming events require a follow-up get_teacher call. It does not discuss the limit cap or result ordering, which is a minor residual gap.

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 tight sentences: what it finds, when to use it, and what it returns plus the follow-up path. Nothing is redundant and the scope statement 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent the shape of the return (short profiles with slug and URL) and how to get the rest. For a five-parameter, all-optional search tool with a fully annotated read-only profile, nothing needed for correct invocation 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 80%, so the schema already documents city, country, query, limit, and the role enum. The description's mention of names, locations, and the three role types loosely maps to those parameters but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 and resource ('Find Contact Improvisation teachers, organizers and musicians') plus the two searchable axes (name, location). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_teacher, so an agent can route 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?

Gives concrete triggering phrasings ('who teaches CI in <city>') and a second scenario (looking up a person mentioned in an event), then names the alternative tool (get_teacher) for the deeper lookup. When-to-use and when-to-escalate are both explicit.

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