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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond structured fields: 20 results per page and a default ordering of "most checked facts first," which the sort enum alone does not disclose. It stops short of describing pagination metadata or how filters combine.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core capability and pagination/ordering facts are front-loaded. The closing pointer to list_categories earns its place, though "most checked facts first" is slightly awkward phrasing for a default sort order.

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 six-parameter search with a nested filter object and no output schema, the description covers pagination and ordering but says nothing about what a returned listing contains, whether a total count is returned, or how the free-text query and where parameters interact. The list_categories cross-reference helps but the definition remains thin for its complexity.

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 50%, and the description largely defers to list_categories for what filter names and values mean rather than explaining them itself. That deferral is genuinely useful routing, but it does not compensate for the undocumented top-level parameters (page, sort, category) or clarify the semantics of the nested filter object.

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?

"Find listings of Venues Abroad" gives a clear verb (find) and resource (listings) and the phrase "with the filters of the site" signals it is a filtered search. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like compare_listings or get_listing, so an agent must infer the boundary from the multi-result/pagination behavior rather than being told.

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 implies usage (browse listings with filters, paginated) and redirects to list_categories for filter names/values, which is a useful hand-off. However it never states when to prefer this over compare_listings or get_listing, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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