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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one addition is the 'published' qualifier, which usefully implies unpublished vendors are excluded from results. It says nothing about pagination, result caps, or relevance fallback behavior beyond what the schema documents.

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 twelve-word sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with zero redundant clauses. Nothing to trim.

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 0-required-param search endpoint with rich schema descriptions and full annotations, the description covers what the tool searches and that results are limited to published vendors. Remaining gaps (sort behavior, cursor pagination semantics) are fully handled by the schema, and no output schema exists to explain.

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%, so the parameter contract (q matching fields, sort defaults, slug formats, cursor reuse, 400 on uncovered country) is already fully specified in the schema. The description only restates the three broad filter families and adds no syntax or precedence detail.

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 voice AI vendors) plus the match dimensions (text, place, category). It is clearly distinct from get_listing (single-record fetch) and list_places/list_categories (slug lookup) by virtue of being a multi-field search, 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 implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery tool when it doesn't already have an ID or slug. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no pointer to get_listing for a known vendor, and no mention that place/category slugs must come from /places or /categories (only the schema says that).

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