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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the meaningful scoping fact that results are limited to published French providers; the richer behavioral detail (typo fallback, cursor opacity, 400 on uncovered country) lives in the schema, not here.

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 or repetition. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves no room for the routing or pagination cues an eight-parameter search tool would benefit from.

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 eight optional parameters, no required fields and no output schema, the description should at least orient the agent on results and pagination (cursor-based paging is only visible in the schema). The rich schema compensates substantially, but the description itself leaves gaps for a moderately complex search endpoint.

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 eight parameters is already documented with patterns, enums and defaults. The description's 'by text, place and category' loosely maps to q, city/region/country and category but adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema, 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) and resource (published French providers) plus the three facets used for filtering. It is distinguishable from get_listing (single item) and the list_* siblings (reference data), though it never explicitly frames that contrast and 'providers' is a slightly loose term for listings.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Search ... by text, place and category' tells the agent what inputs exist but never says when to reach for this instead of list_places, list_categories or get_listing, nor any preconditions. An agent can infer it is the search entry point, but nothing is stated.

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