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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the search purpose and filter categories. It does not disclose pagination behavior, how filtering combines with free-text search, handling of empty results, or whether results are ranked/ordered.

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 sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful example query. 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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It covers the basic search intent but omits behavioral details like result format, pagination, filter semantics, and any prerequisites or fallback behavior, so an agent cannot fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by grouping location fields, specialty, price range, and rating, and provides a concrete example. However, it does not clarify page, limit, verified, search, or min/max price values, leaving significant gaps.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('makeup artists and beauty professionals on Sharaloge'), and enumerates filter dimensions. It clearly distinguishes this search tool from the sibling tools get_artist_profile and reserve_booking.

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 example 'find me a makeup artist in Lagos' gives the agent a clear trigger for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling tools as alternatives.

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