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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does so by specifying the return content ('Returns truck profiles including name, cuisine, city, bio, and a direct booking URL'), verifying operator status ('All returned trucks are verified operators'), and stating coverage ('21 cities across Lee, Collier, Sarasota, Charlotte, and Hendry counties'). It omits details like pagination or ordering, but the disclosed behavior is substantial and goes beyond a bare operation.

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 compact yet comprehensive, front-loading the primary action and then providing filters, return information, coverage, and verification status in a logical sequence. Every sentence carries meaningful content, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 description effectively covers purpose, filter criteria, return fields, geographic scope, and verification status, which is robust for a search tool with a well-documented schema. It lacks some minor behavioral details like result ordering or limit handling, but these are either inferred or covered by the schema. The absence of an output schema makes the described return fields especially valuable.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters, including examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only minimally reinforces that filtering is by type, city, or keyword, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already explains. It maintains a baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search verified food truck operators on the ServiceWindow marketplace in Southwest Florida (SWFL).' The verb 'search' is specific, the resource is clearly defined, and the geographic scope is explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_truck, list_marketplace) by focusing on multi-criteria search rather than single-truck retrieval or marketplace listing.

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?

The description implies usage through the filter options ('Filter by cuisine type, city, or keyword') and provides context about the 21-city coverage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_truck or list_marketplace, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is present but implicit.

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