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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the 'Free' attribute and nationwide scope, providing useful context beyond the schema. It does not describe return format or limits, but given the read-only annotation, the bar is lower and this is acceptable.

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 short sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the 'Free' note is a useful extra that doesn't clutter the description.

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 simple search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. It lacks explicit return value details, but that is not critical for a search operation.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the description does not add additional meaning or formatting details. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states a specific action (search) on a specific resource (Match Fit fitness coaches) with scope (nationwide) and filtering criteria (specialty, monthly budget). It distinguishes itself from the sibling mf_book_coach by implying this is the discovery step before booking.

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 the context (searching for coaches) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mf_book_coach or other search tools. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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