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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: verified profiles expose price ranges and reviews while unclaimed listings do not, results are Spanish-language, prices are in COP, and the agent should surface each profileUrl. These are real operational facts an agent needs to present results correctly.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the verified-vs-unclaimed caveat and locale/currency notes following. The parenthetical provider list is slightly long but genuinely useful for matching user phrasing; there is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results and does so at a high level (price range and reviews only for verified profiles, link out to profileUrl). It does not say how many fields each result contains or what an empty result looks like, but is otherwise sufficient for a read-only search tool.

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 all four parameters, including examples and the default limit. The description echoes the city-plus-optional-service/name pattern without adding syntax, matching behavior, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (marketplace of event providers in Colombia), and enumerates the provider types covered. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_provider (single lookup) and list_categories (taxonomy), so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Makes usage clear: city is the anchor, service or name are optional refinements, and category slugs come from list_categories. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_provider or request_quotes over searching, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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