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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description cannot add much there. It contributes one genuine behavioral fact beyond structured data — the result set is restricted to published studios — but says nothing about pagination, result ordering behavior, or what an empty search yields.

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 or restatement of the title. It is efficient, but its brevity is part of the reason other dimensions are thin — it is concise without being fully informative.

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 eight-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the what but not the how: cursor-based pagination, sort defaults, and the 400 returned for an uncovered country are all learnable only from the schema. It is minimally complete — an agent can call it — but it leaves meaningful operational context unstated.

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 every one of the eight parameters is already documented with patterns, defaults, enum meaning and cross-references to /places and /categories. The description only restates the search dimensions (text, place, category) at a coarser grain, adding no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema. This is the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ("Search") and a specific resource ("published yoga studios") with a scope qualifier ("published"), plus the axes it searches on (text, place, category). That is enough to separate it from get_listing (single record) and the list_* siblings without opening a schema, though it never explicitly names a contrasting alternative.

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 rather than stated: the verb "Search" plus the filter axes make it obvious this is the browse/filter entry point, and "published" signals it will not return drafts. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_listing or the list_places / list_categories lookups that the schema says supply the slug values, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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