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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the 25-result cap, the sort order (NA Program Strength descending, then name), the presence of a total match count, the exact fields returned, and that the tool is read-only. Pagination's absence is implicitly covered by the stated cap plus the advice to narrow with filters.

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?

A single dense paragraph with zero filler: identity and scope first, then filter semantics, then return contract, then the sibling pointer. The mid-paragraph field enumeration is the only long stretch, and it substitutes for a missing output schema, so it earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return shape (fields, scale meaning for naProgramStrength, canonical URL), the cap, and the sort order. Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs, an agent has everything needed to call this 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%, so each of the three parameters is already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds the AND-combination semantics and the no-filter default, but no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Search NABarFinder') and immediately scopes it: 1547 venues, 70 cities, human-verified NA programs. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_venue by directing the agent there for full records, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening any 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 states that all filters are optional and combine with AND, and that no filters returns top-rated venues overall. It also names the escalation path for both directions: 'narrow with filters' when total exceeds the cap, and 'use get_venue with a result's slug' for detail.

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