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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safe-read profile is established. The description adds return-value context ('canonical listing URLs and structured planning details'), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or what 'structured planning details' means. 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The resource, search dimensions, and output type are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The core purpose and return type are covered, but with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves gaps: whether filters can be combined, whether an unfiltered search is allowed, and pagination semantics are all implicit. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 40%, covering city and query. The description restates those axes and adds 'category' but provides no extra semantics for limit or offset, which also lack schema descriptions. The low coverage is not adequately compensated.

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 and resource: 'Search nearly 4,000 North Carolina wedding venues and vendors' by category, city, or free text. It clearly distinguishes this directory-search tool from siblings like get_nc_wedding_vendor, which implies a single-vendor lookup.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: finding venues/vendors across a broad directory by multiple search dimensions. It does not explicitly call out when to prefer sibling tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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