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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: results expose only name, category, approximate location, verification tier, and app links, while direct contacts remain on claimable profiles. This goes beyond annotations and provides transparency about data limitations.

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 a clear paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then lists supported provider types. It is somewhat lengthy due to the extensive list, but each sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given 11 parameters, a 36% schema coverage, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description covers the core behavior and result restrictions adequately. It mentions the language support and the types of providers, providing enough context alongside annotations for correct tool invocation.

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 36%, so the description should compensate. It adds general context about the query parameter (listing many examples) and mentions language support, but does not detail parameters like intent, radiusKm, or maxWindKmh. The description provides moderate additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Use for conversational requests for professionals near a destination' and lists many specific provider categories (surf schools, dive centers, rental services, etc.), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like search_beaches or search_surf_spots which focus on locations rather than providers.

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 clearly states the use case (searching for professionals near a destination) and notes that it supports multiple languages. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the detailed list of provider types gives strong contextual guidance.

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