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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description does add one real behavioral fact not in annotations — only 'published' companies are matched — but says nothing about result shape, ranking behavior or empty-result handling, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key scope word 'published' appears early. It is efficient but so terse that it forgoes the chance to carry usage or return-shape guidance.

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 output schema and is this the main entry point for the domain, the description covers only the what. It never says what a result contains, how paging surfaces, or that results are ranked, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from the schema alone.

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 the baseline is 3. The description confirms that text, place and category are the intended filter dimensions but adds no syntax, precedence or combination rules beyond what the schema already documents in detail (slugs from /places and /categories, sort defaults, cursor reuse).

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 home lift companies) plus the three faceting axes (text, place, category), which is enough to distinguish it from the singular get_listing and the enumeration siblings list_categories/list_places. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 by the phrase 'search ... by text, place and category'; there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_* or get_listing, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance. An agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point and the others are follow-ups.

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