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 fully covered. The description does add one genuine behavioral fact beyond them — that only "published" agencies are returned, implying drafts/unpublished records are excluded — but it says nothing about result volume, typo-fallback matching, or error behavior for uncovered countries.

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 the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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, a fully described schema and no output schema, the structured fields carry most of the burden, so the description is not required to explain returns. Still, for a faceted search tool it omits the key operational facts an agent needs — that all filters are optional, how facets combine, and when to prefer a sibling lookup 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 parameter (including the cursor/pagination contract and the sort defaults) is already documented in the schema. The description's "by text, place and category" merely maps loosely onto q, the place slugs and category, adding no format, precedence, or combination rules beyond what the schema states.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Search published surrogacy agencies") plus the three facets it searches over (text, place, category). That is enough to tell it apart from get_listing (single item), list_places/list_categories/list_sources (lookup tables) and get_stats, though it never names those 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before get_listing, or which of the three facets is required versus optional. The only signal is the verb "Search", which leaves the agent to infer the routing decision entirely from the sibling names.

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