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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the 'published' scope, but says nothing about result paging (cursor/limit interplay) or the 400 behavior on uncovered countries mentioned in the 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 with no filler; the searchable facets come first. It is efficient but stops short of including the one or two clarifying clauses that would raise it above adequate.

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 filters, cursor pagination, and no output schema, the description should at least signal that results are paged and that place/category slugs come from sibling list tools. The schema covers the mechanics, but the description leaves an agent to discover pagination on its own.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented, including sort defaults and cursor reuse, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'text, place and category' only loosely maps to q, city/region/country, and category without adding format detail.

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 peptide providers') plus the searchable facets (text, place, category). The 'published' qualifier scopes it usefully, but the description never contrasts it with get_listing (single record) or list_places/list_categories, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention that place/category slugs should be discovered via list_places and list_categories (that hint exists only inside the schema). An agent has to derive its routing decision from the tool name alone.

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