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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating it 'Returns real published listings with ratings, price bands and a link to each profile', which informs the agent about the result content and that listings are real, not test data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a concise, actionable routing to a sibling tool. Every word 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?

With 8 optional parameters fully covered by the schema and no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the return content (ratings, price bands, link). It also mentions the prerequisite tool for parameter decisions. While pagination and result structure aren't detailed, the combination of annotations, schema, and description is sufficient for a read-only 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 coverage is 100% so all parameters are documented. The description adds value by advising to use list_wedding_markets if unsure about category or country code, which directly guides parameter selection beyond what the schema provides. This is a meaningful addition to parameter semantics.

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 the resource 'Wedyesday's directory of wedding vendors', with a list of example categories. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_wedding_markets by advising when to use that tool instead, which prevents ambiguity.

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 names a sibling tool (list_wedding_markets) and the condition under which it should be used first ('if you are unsure which category or country code to pass'). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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