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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's burden is light. It does add the meaningful scope qualifier 'published' (unpublished vendors are excluded), but says nothing about result shape, paging behavior, or empty-result handling beyond what the schema already carries.

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 zero redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for an eight-parameter tool rather than being tight-but-complete.

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 an all-optional, multi-facet search with no output schema, an agent still lacks description-level guidance on filter combination, whether results are paginated, and the default sort interaction. The rich schema compensates substantially, but the description itself does not close the gap.

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%, including enum semantics for sort, slug provenance for city/region/category, and cursor rules, so baseline is 3. The description's fragment 'by text, place and category' merely groups the filters and adds no syntax, defaults, or precedence beyond the schema.

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 (search) and resource (published education vendors) plus the three facet families it searches over (text, place, category). That is enough to distinguish it from get_listing (single-record fetch) and the list_* reference tools, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied — an agent infers this is the discovery entry point when it does not already have an ID. There is no stated when-not condition, no mention that list_categories / list_places should be called first to obtain valid slugs, and no guidance on how the eight optional filters combine.

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