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 is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that — only *published* clinics are returned — but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering defaults, or what an empty result means.

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 11-word sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and the resource scope. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys what is searched and that results are limited to published clinics. It does not describe the response envelope (cursor/page fields the schema references) or how multiple place filters combine, which leaves real gaps for a faceted 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%, so every one of the 8 parameters is already documented, including slug formats, the sort defaults and cursor reuse. The description only restates the filter grouping ('text, place and category') and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 sleep clinics) plus the three filter axes (text, place, category). This clearly separates it from get_listing (single fetch) and the list_* siblings, though no sibling is named 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 only implied: the word 'published' hints at scope, and 'search ... by text, place and category' suggests discovery scenarios. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_listing or list_places, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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