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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the meaningful 'published only' scope constraint; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or ordering semantics beyond what the schema states.

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; the scope qualifier 'published' and the filter axes appear immediately. Nothing in it is redundant with structured fields.

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 8-parameter, paginated search with no output schema, the description is thin: it never mentions that results are paginated via cursor or what a result represents. The schema compensates for parameter detail, but the overall call context is only minimally covered.

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 all eight parameters (including the q matching behavior, slug sources, and cursor reuse rules) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'text, place and category' mapping adds nothing beyond that baseline.

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 a precisely scoped resource ('published dating coaches'), with the three filter axes named. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_listing or list_places, but the 'search published listings' framing is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g. get_listing for a single coach, list_places/list_categories for resolving slugs). The 'by text, place and category' phrase hints at supported filters but never states conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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