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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral constraint not in the annotations: results are limited to *published* agents, implying unpublished/removed entries are excluded. It says nothing about pagination cost or result ordering behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: verb, resource, and the three search dimensions.

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 does not describe the return shape (that it returns a paged result set with page.nextCursor), which the cursor parameter only implies. Annotations and 100% parameter coverage make the definition usable, but the result contract is left entirely to inference.

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%, with per-parameter detail on matching scope, sort defaults, cursor opacity, and place/category slug sources. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, so a 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 uses a specific verb (Search) and a precise resource (published ITIN acceptance agents) and names the three filter axes (text, place, category). It is clearly distinguishable from get_listing (single-fetch) and list_places/list_categories (reference lists), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The schema hints that slugs come from /places and /categories, but the description itself offers no routing context for choosing search_listings over list_places or get_listing.

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