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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by scoping the payload: 'Returns names, kinds, slugs and page URLs only — no prices, stock or medical information.' It stops short of describing result ordering or cross-kind merging behavior for the limit parameter, which is the remaining 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 sentences, each doing distinct work: scope of search, when to use it and what to do next, and what the response does and does not contain. The most decisive information (what it searches) is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still summarizes them and flags the notable exclusions. Combined with annotation coverage and a fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has everything required to select and invoke this tool 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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' documented inline (including the 1-20 range and default 8), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of turning 'a name into a slug' hints at query intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 — 'One text search across clinics, pharmacies, products, strains and brands' — and its breadth makes it immediately distinguishable from the narrower siblings find_clinics, find_products, etc. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

Explicitly names the selection condition: 'Use it when you do not yet know which kind the question is about, or to turn a name into a slug; then call the specific tool, which returns more detail.' It gives both a when-to-use rule and the follow-up alternative, which is exactly the routing guidance needed against six sibling finders.

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