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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only 'published' agents are returned, but says nothing about result shape, pagination behaviour, or empty-result handling despite there being no output schema.

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 covering verb, resource and facets, with no filler or repetition.

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 8 all-optional params, full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description does not need to carry much. The one real gap is the absence of any hint about what a result contains, but the field name and schema make the call mechanics clear enough to invoke correctly.

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 parameters are fully documented in structured data (including the slug sources and the sort defaults). The description only restates the three facet groups and adds no syntax, precedence, or combination semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus concrete resource (published investment migration agents) and the three facet families. It is clearly distinct from get_listing (single-record fetch) and from the list_* siblings, though it never names them.

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' signals the faceted-query intent, and the schema notes that place/category slugs come from /places and /categories. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_places/list_categories or what to do when no filters match.

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