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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact not in the annotations: results are restricted to *published* agencies. It says nothing about pagination, result volume or ordering beyond what the schema's sort/cursor fields already convey.

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 filler, which is the right shape for a search tool. It is arguably under-sized for an 8-parameter endpoint, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: an agent gets no statement about which filters can be combined, that all are optional, or that results paginate via cursor. These are inferable from the schema but not reinforced.

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 100% and each parameter carries a detailed description (slug formats, defaults, cursor continuation rules), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's "text, place and category" only loosely maps to q/city/region/country/category and adds no format or combination semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("published AI agencies") plus the three facets it searches over. It is clearly distinct from get_listing (single fetch) and get_stats, though it never explicitly names those siblings to reinforce the contrast.

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: "Search ... by text, place and category" suggests you call it when you have a query or location filter rather than an ID. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_listing or list_places, and no mention that all filters are optional or combinable.

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