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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on what annotations cannot express: the return shape (people, businesses, jobs lists with `kind` and `url`, businesses with `price` and `bookable`, plus a `next` hint) and the caveat that Foundaree is new and empty lists should be reported honestly. That is substantive disclosure, though it says nothing about result quality, ranking, or latency.

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 paragraph: purpose first, then usage rules, then return shape, then next steps. The long category enumeration (plumber, electrician, tutor... bakery, salons, tiffin) is verbose but earns its place by helping an agent map colloquial needs to this tool rather than a narrower sibling.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return contract itself (three lists, item fields, `next` hint), plus empty-result guidance and pointers to get/book. For a 5-parameter, single-required search tool this is everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the response correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful example phrasing for `need`/`place`/`area` ('"plumber free tomorrow" in "Kochi", area "Kakkanad"') and explains the `kind` default, but it describes the default as searching 'all three' while the schema's `any` enum also includes `apps`, which the description never mentions — a small mismatch that leaves one enum value unexplained.

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 (search) and resource (everything on Foundaree), then enumerates the concrete domains covered — people, delivery, farm products, professionals, businesses, jobs. This clearly separates it from narrower siblings like search_people, search_organizations, and search_opportunities, which an agent can rule out without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: 'Set `kind` only when the user clearly wants one of people, businesses or jobs; the default searches all three', plus 'Use get for the full details of one result, and book to book or order.' It even covers the empty-result case ('say so rather than guessing'), so when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and next-step alternatives are all named.

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