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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds valuable non-obvious semantics: all filters are optional and AND-combined, and absent fields mean 'not published', never zero. This goes beyond what the schema alone conveys and prevents misinterpretation of result fields.

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 description is two sentences and every clause adds information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second conveys critical interaction and result semantics without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers each parameter and enum, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify what a search result contains, such as venue IDs, names, or location fields. It also does not mention ordering or pagination beyond the limit parameter, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding how to use results.

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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds cross-parameter semantics not present in the schema: filters are optional and AND-combined. This meaningfully affects how an agent should combine multiple query parameters.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Search cold plunge / sauna venues.' The mention of optional, AND-combined filters and the absent-fields semantics helps distinguish this search tool from sibling tools like get_venue or list_cities, which have different purposes.

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 implies this tool is for finding venues by optional filters, but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives like get_venue or list_cities. The guidance is inferential rather than stated, so an agent gets a general sense of when to use it but no explicit exclusions.

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