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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that only 'published' specialists are searched, but it does not add pagination, result-format, auth, or rate-limit context beyond what the schema implies.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Its brevity is appropriate for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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?

The core search behavior is clear, and the rich schema plus annotations cover filters and safety. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what a result or page contains, and pagination is only implied through the cursor parameter in the schema.

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 the schema carries parameter documentation. The description only indicates text, place, and category filtering; it adds no syntax or meaning for sort, limit, or cursor beyond what the schema already 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 gives a specific verb, resource, and search facets: 'Search published wine cellar specialists by text, place and category.' This distinguishes it from retrieval sibling get_listing and list-style siblings such as list_places and list_categories.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. It does not mention using get_listing for detail or list_places/list_categories to obtain slugs, even though the schema references /places and /categories.

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