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's one extra behavioral fact is that only "published" clinics are searchable, which is useful scoping context but does not address pagination, result caps, or rate limits.

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 scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately terse, though it is thin enough that it reads more like a label than a full definition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description leaves the agent without any hint of the response shape, paging model, or empty-result behavior; the schema compensates for the inputs but not the outputs.

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% across all 8 parameters, including sort defaults, cursor chaining, and slug sources, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only loosely maps its facet phrase (text/place/category) onto q, city/region/country, and category, adding little beyond the schema.

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 fertility clinics") plus the three facet axes (text, place, category), which is enough for an agent to know what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_listing or list_places, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The fact that city/region/category slugs must first come from /places and /categories appears only in the schema parameter descriptions, not in the tool description.

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