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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that only 'published' specialists are returned — but says nothing about typo fallback behavior, pagination, or what an empty result means, all of which the schema only partially covers.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is arguably too terse for an 8-parameter paginated search, but nothing in it is wasted, so it loses only a little.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would be the place to signal that results are paginated via a cursor and that only published listings appear. It gestures at 'published' but leaves the return shape entirely undocumented for a fairly complex 8-param search operation.

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 is documented in detail (slug formats, cursor reuse, sort defaults). The description's 'text, place and category' phrase merely maps to the q/city-region-country/category groups and adds no format or interaction detail 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 garage specialists') with the three axes of matching (text, place, category). It is clearly distinguishable from get_listing by the plural result-set framing, but it never names a sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the mention of text/place/category searching, so an agent can infer this is the discovery entry point. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_listing, nor any hint that list_places/list_categories exist to source the required slugs referenced in the schema.

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