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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return semantics: 'Returns matching items with id, title, price, category, and a real image URL' and search criteria, providing helpful context beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Each sentence adds value: action/scope, return data, and usage guidance. No 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete. It covers scope, matching semantics, return fields, and a concrete use case. No output schema exists, so the return-field listing is sufficient.

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 single keyword parameter is fully described in the schema, meeting the 100% coverage baseline. The description adds meaning by specifying that matching occurs against 'item title, category, and sub-category' and gives concrete examples.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly defines scope: 'across Fixidu's full catalog (every bookable item across every category)'. It also names match fields (title, category, sub-category) and return fields, distinguishing it from siblings like list_service_categories and get_service_price.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user asks about a specific kind of service' with examples. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond that.

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