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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the result ordering puts Verified Pros (3,000+ lessons, 4.9+ rating) first and results are aggregated across seven distinct platforms. Pagination behavior for limit/offset is not disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, both doing work. The front-loaded platform list is long but it is the tool's core scoping information; the second sentence delivers use cases and filter options without filler.

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 a low-complexity read-only search with no required parameters and no output schema, the description supplies enough: source coverage, result ordering, and available filters. The missing piece is any indication of result shape or pagination semantics for limit/offset.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It does map 'filter by platform' to the platform enum and 'free text' to q, and the Verified Pros emphasis hints at the verified_pro boolean, but limit, offset, and their bounds are never explained.

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 the exact resource (online Dutch tutors) and enumerates the seven source platforms, so an agent immediately knows what corpus is searched. The action verb lives only in the title ('Find'), and no sibling tool covers the same domain, so disambiguation is automatic rather than argued in the text.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: private lessons, conversation practice, or a tutor on a schedule, plus a note that results can be narrowed by platform or free text. It stops short of any when-not guidance or alternative-tool routing, which is the only gap.

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