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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful scoping constraint that only published studios are returned, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what a typo fallback means behaviorally.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. The scoping qualifier 'published' is placed where it matters most.

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 all-optional parameters and a fully documented schema, the short description is mostly sufficient; the cursor parameter even hints at the paginated response shape. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description never indicates what a result item contains.

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 parameter including sort defaults, cursor reuse and country 400 behavior is already documented in the schema. The description's 'text, place and category' phrasing merely summarizes parameter groupings without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 and resource with scope: 'Search published studios' by text, place and category. This clearly separates it from get_listing (single lookup) and the list_* siblings, though it never names those alternatives 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' signals that unpublished studios are excluded from results. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_listing or how to obtain slugs (that guidance lives only in the schema as '/places' and '/categories').

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