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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: only *published* clinics are returned. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or what a search returns structurally.

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 zero filler. The verb, scope qualifier and facets are all in the first few words.

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?

For an 8-parameter, all-optional facet search with no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin — it doesn't describe the paginated response shape or how facets combine (AND vs OR), leaving the agent to infer that from the schema's cursor note.

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 covers every nuance (slug sources, sort defaults, cursor semantics, 400 on uncovered country). The description's phrase "by text, place and category" merely restates the facets already fully documented in the schema, so 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 and resource ("Search published TMS clinics") plus the three facets it searches by. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_listing (single record) and the list_* siblings, though it never names them.

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 infers you call this to find clinics matching text/place/category. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_listing or the list_* tools, and no note that all parameters are optional (empty search returns everything published).

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