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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description earns credit for adding facts the schema cannot: default page size of 8 unless limit is set, compact drops summaries, results are returned nearest-first for proximity queries, and opening days are absent from the data entirely. That data-gap disclosure is genuinely useful for avoiding wrong answers, though pagination/total-count behavior is still unstated.

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 whole definition is a single semicolon-spliced fragment that mixes return-field documentation, transfer-pricing caveats, proximity behavior, default page size and compact semantics with no front-loaded purpose sentence. Almost every clause carries information, but the structure forces the reader to reconstruct the tool's job from the tail of the text.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to fill behavioral gaps — and it does: default result count, ordering, compact behavior, and the missing opening-days data. For an 8-parameter, all-optional search tool this is close to sufficient; only the interaction between query/area/kind filters is left implicit.

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?

With 63% schema coverage, the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it defines the result ordering for near/radiusKm, the effect of compact, and clarifies that price means a private-driver transfer from Beaune per vehicle (one way or same-day return) rather than an entry fee. kind, limit and lang receive no elaboration in the description, leaving the remaining coverage gap unfilled.

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 enumerates exactly what is searchable (wine villages, châteaux, sights, MICHELIN-starred restaurants) and what comes back (id, commune, drive and price, page and booking link), which makes the resource unmistakable and separates it from find_events/get_prices. The action verb ('search') is only in the title, and the opening fragment has no subject, so an agent must infer 'search places' rather than read it.

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?

One usage mode is stated explicitly: using near plus radiusKm returns places around a place, nearest first. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over get_page (an individual place's detail) or find_events, and there are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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