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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait — results are limited to *published* builders — but says nothing about result set size, ordering defaults, or the paging envelope beyond what the cursor parameter's schema already states.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though for an eight-parameter tool with pagination the terseness starts to shade into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 full schema coverage, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient — an agent can call it correctly from the schema alone. The remaining gap is that nothing signals the paginated response shape (page.nextCursor) or that unpublished builders are excluded, which the description only half-conveys via "published".

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 parameter docs are unusually rich (typo fallback, sort defaults, cursor reuse rules, country 400 behavior), so the schema carries all semantic load. The description's phrase "by text, place and category" only loosely maps onto the q/city/region/country/category group and adds no detail beyond it.

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 a clearly bounded resource ("published wellness room builders") and the three match dimensions. The word "search" combined with the plural resource makes it distinguishable from get_listing and the list_* siblings without opening a schema, though the description never explicitly names that contrast.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for querying without a known ID, versus get_listing for a specific item. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, no mention of list_categories/list_places as companions for resolving slug parameters, and no exclusions.

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