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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with a curated, read-only directory. It adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the ranking logic (verified listings first, then rating) and what each result carries, giving the agent a sense of result ordering and trust signals.

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, both information-dense: the first covers what is found and where, the second covers ranking and return contents. Nothing is repeated or wasted, and the core purpose 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 correctly compensates by explaining that results include services, Google rating and a link to a detail page containing hours, prices, temperatures and booking. It does not address zero-result behavior or the default limit, but those are minor for a simple read-only search.

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%, with the location formats and the service enum semantics already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the location input types but adds no new meaning for limit or the service enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (sauna, cold plunge and contrast therapy studios), plus geographic scope (United States) and accepted location inputs. An agent can tell instantly this is a location-based studio directory search, and it is clearly distinct from the equipment-pricing siblings.

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 clear context for use (locating studios near a city, ZIP or metro) but never states when not to use it or names an alternative path. With siblings in an unrelated equipment domain, differentiation is implicitly obvious, yet there is no explicit guidance about service filtering or result-count choice to route the agent.

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