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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds real operational context: a hard 100-result ceiling across pages 0-4, 20 results per page, and the deliberate omission of contact details and photos. The instruction to always surface the escortfox.com link is a useful behavioral constraint, though rate limits or latency are not mentioned.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler; the return shape comes first, then the per-type constraints, then the pagination limit as the closing warning. The most failure-prone constraint (100-result ceiling) is placed last for emphasis rather than buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly — enumerating the summary fields and explicitly flagging the missing contact details and photos. Combined with the conditional input rules and pagination cap, an agent has everything needed to call and present results correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter reasoning the schema only states piecewise: which parameter combinations are valid per search type and how the optional district, service and verified parameters relate to the page cap. The lang parameter, however, gets no mention in the description.

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 (search) and resource (EscortFox directory of escorts, agencies and venues) plus the exact scope of what is returned: listing summaries, not full listings. This cleanly separates it from get_listing, which an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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 explicit per-type prerequisites: escort and venue searches need country + city, agency searches need country only, with pointers to list_countries and list_cities for obtaining them. It also gives a positive alternative to pagination ("narrow the search with district, service or verified instead of paging further").

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