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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by saying it returns real published listings and summarizing the returned data (ratings, price bands, profile link), which helps the agent set expectations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the tool's purpose, the second summarizes the return payload, and the third gives a cross-tool usage hint. The description is front-loaded and free of 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 compensates by mentioning ratings, price bands, and profile links. It also addresses the most important ambiguity around category/country code. However, it does not clarify how the multiple optional filters interact or whether results may be empty, leaving a small completeness gap for an 8-parameter 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 8 parameters. The description adds only light semantic support by giving examples of vendor categories and pointing to list_wedding_markets for category/country code uncertainty, but does not add substantive parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 it searches Wedyesday's wedding vendor directory and enumerates example vendor types. It also distinguishes the tool by noting what results include (ratings, price bands, profile links) and references list_wedding_markets as a related sibling.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use list_wedding_markets first when unsure about category or country code. This directly addresses when a sibling tool should be preferred and frames the main use case as a directory search.

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