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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations — that only 'published' listings are searchable — but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering rules, which the schema handles instead.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and filter axes front-loaded and zero filler. It is terse relative to the tool's 8-parameter complexity, 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?

For an 8-parameter search tool with pagination, zero required parameters and no output schema, the description leaves pagination, defaults and filter interaction entirely to the schema. Since the schema is fully documented, an agent can still call it correctly, but the prose contributes little beyond the minimum.

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 parameter including q, sort, cursor and the slug formats is already documented. The description's 'by text, place and category' loosely maps to q/city-region-country/category but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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) and resource (published driving schools) with the three filter axes named. It is clearly distinguishable from get_listing (single record) even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 mention of when a plain list_categories/list_places lookup is preferable, and no prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the schema's references to /places and /categories.

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