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 needs no repeating. The description adds the 'published' visibility constraint, which is useful, but says nothing about result shape, pagination behaviour or empty-query semantics that would go beyond the structured fields.

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 verb and the qualifying scope constraint come first. Nothing redundant is included.

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?

Eight optional parameters and no output schema mean the description should say more about what a default call returns and how paging works. It is adequate only because the input schema carries unusually rich per-parameter documentation, leaving the description itself thin for a multi-facet search tool.

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%, and the schema itself documents typo fallback, slug sourcing, sort defaults and cursor reuse far better than the description does. The description only echoes the facets (text, place, category) already enumerated per-parameter, so 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 marine contractors), plus the three axes of matching (text, place, category). It is clearly a collection-level search versus the singular get_listing sibling, though it never names siblings 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?

The word 'published' implies a scope restriction, and the queryable facets are listed, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement that omitting q returns an unfiltered listing, and no pointer to get_listing for single-record retrieval. Usage is only implied.

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