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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and world-scope are covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are restricted to companies that accept bookings through Nadveo — but says nothing about result volume, ranking, or pagination.

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 sentence with zero filler; the scope-defining clause comes first and the filter list follows. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 read-only search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers scope and filter dimensions adequately. What is missing is any hint about result shape or limits, which is a small gap rather than a blocking one.

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 the ISO 3166 country format and the trade enum meaning. The description's 'ISO code, e.g. AE' merely echoes the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

It precisely names the resource and its scope — service companies that take bookings through Nadveo — and enumerates the filterable dimensions, which lets an agent predict the result set. It falls short of 5 only because it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb and there are no siblings to differentiate against.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated filters (country, city, trade, name), so an agent can infer this is a lookup-by-attribute tool. There is no statement of when NOT to use it, no prerequisites, and no alternatives, since no sibling tools exist to route to.

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