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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns 'verified brokers' and states that 'email and phone' are redacted. This goes beyond annotations and gives the agent useful expectations about the response content.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase earns its place: the search criteria, the platform, and the redaction behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively complex (12 params, nested object, no output schema). The description explains the high-level input categories and the redacted output, but it omits details about pagination, sorting, result structure, or what 'verified' means. Given the annotations provide safety context, this is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'location, name, languages' — mapping to several parameters — and 'and more' covers the rest, though vaguely. It does not explain specific parameters like opportunityScore, page, sort, or limit, but the property names in the schema are largely self-descriptive, so this is a minimal viable score.

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 clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('business brokers (agents) on Venturu'), with specific search criteria ('location, name, languages, and more'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_broker (which implies fetching a single broker) and contact_broker (contact action).

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 provides clear context that this tool is for finding brokers by various filters, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tool names. A slightly more explicit 'use get_broker for a specific broker' would push it to 5.

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