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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one useful scope fact — only *published* authorities are returned — but says nothing about pagination, empty-result behavior, or typo fallback, all of which are only visible in the schema and cursor param text.

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 sentence with zero filler and the key facets front-loaded. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than deliberately terse — nothing is wasted, yet little is added.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain the search result shape and paging loop, and it does not. The schema compensates for filter semantics, so the definition is workable, but an agent gets no narrative on what a hit looks like or how to continue past the first page.

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 8 parameters is already fully documented (slug sources, sort defaults, cursor reuse rules, country 400 behavior). The description itself contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond naming the three facet types, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus the resource (published apostille authorities) and the three facet types used to filter (text, place, category). An agent can distinguish this from get_listing (single item) and the list_* siblings, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly and the 'listings'/'authorities' naming mismatch requires a small inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_listing, get_stats, list_places or list_categories; the agent must infer routing from the tool names alone. The only routing hints ('from /places', 'from /categories') live in the schema descriptions, not in the tool description itself.

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