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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the description earns credit for adding something beyond them: that paid placements may be ranked first and that ordering is not an independent recommendation. That ordering-bias disclosure is genuinely useful and not captured by any structured field, though nothing is said about result volume or pagination.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the disclosure. Efficient, though the second sentence could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 five-parameter search tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: no explanation of city, category, limit, or what a result looks like. The paid-placement disclosure is a strong addition but does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 0% for five parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does not. It hints at the keyword query and at the business/event split (kind), but city, category, and limit are never mentioned, and constraints like the 200-char query cap or the 1-100 limit come only from the schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find Puerto Rico businesses and current/upcoming events. It is clearly a keyword-discovery tool as opposed to the singular get_listing, though it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with list_categories or highlighted_services.

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 word 'Find matching' implies a search-style invocation, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_listing or the list_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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