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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-world profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral trait that results are less detailed than the specific tools, which is useful. It doesn't disclose pagination or result grouping, but with annotations covering the main behavioral profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no waste. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is compactly appended. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and tool selection. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the result format or grouping, but the annotations and schema carry enough context for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the context that 'limit' defaults to 8 per kind, which is a useful nuance beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to compensate for missing schema docs. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('clinics, pharmacies, products, strains and brands'), and explicitly frames it as a cross-cutting search. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by naming the specific tools as alternatives, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when you do not yet know which category the question is about, and use the specific tool when you do, because it returns more detail. This directly addresses tool selection and names the alternatives.

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