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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior, the `resolvedPlace` response field, and the fact that a `query` naming a place is treated as a place. It could mention rate limits or auth, but for a simple search it is adequate.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence provides a distinct piece of operational guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by mentioning key return fields (`resolvedPlace`, `hasMore`, `nextOffset`). It covers filtering and pagination, leaving little ambiguity for usage.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds relational nuance between `place` and `query`, and explains pagination parameters in context. This extra semantic guidance raises it above baseline.

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: searching publicly listed post-production facilities, distribution vendors, and creative companies. The verb 'search' plus the resource scope distinguishes it from generic search and other sibling tools like get_facility or list_services.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on filtering mechanisms (free text, place slug, service UUID) and advises to prefer `place` over `query` for location-based searches. Also explains pagination with `hasMore` and `nextOffset`. It doesn't explicitly compare to sibling search tools but gives enough contextual cues.

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