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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only the 'published' scoping detail; it says nothing about pagination, empty-result behavior, or typo fallback (that lives in the schema). Some added value, but thin against a 4-hint annotation block.

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 or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the tool under-explained relative to its 8-parameter surface; still, no sentence 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?

For an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but the schema itself is exceptionally rich, covering cursor pagination, sort defaults, slug sources and error cases (uncovered country gives 400). What is missing is description-level framing of how filters combine and what a result set looks like, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 documented in the schema with patterns, defaults and cross-references. The description's 'by text, place and category' loosely maps to q/city-region-country/category but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. 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 clear verb+resource: searching 'published doulas'. The qualifier 'published' scopes the result set meaningfully. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as get_listing, though the search/retrieve split is largely self-evident from the names.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that city/region/country slugs come from list_places or category slugs from list_categories), and names no alternatives. The agent must infer all routing from sibling names and schema text.

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