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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description does add genuine value by enumerating the verification status values returned (verified, contacted, unverified), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, ordering, or what happens when no city is supplied.

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; the resource list is enumerated compactly. The trailing phrase about Staylong's verification status is slightly dense but still earns its place by flagging a returned field.

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 and all three parameters optional, the description should clarify default behavior (e.g., all cities, all types, verification filtering off) and roughly what comes back. It identifies the domain and the status vocabulary but leaves those operational questions open.

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 only 33% — city is documented, but type and verified_only carry no schema descriptions. The description compensates partially: it names the three entity types that map to the type enum and mentions verification status, which hints at verified_only, but it never explains the boolean's default or the effect of omitting city.

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 (list) and a concrete resource set (language schools, Muay Thai camps, visa agents) scoped to a Thai city, which distinguishes it from the visa/immigration siblings. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from generic siblings like list_places or search, which could plausibly return the same entities.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain vocabulary: an agent can infer this is the tool for finding schools/camps/agents rather than visa rules. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of list_places or search as alternatives for broader place lookups.

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