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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds ordering behavior ('Newest first as Street orders them'), pagination behavior, and the endpoint ('GET /vendors'), but does not describe return shape, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose, then ordering/pagination, then endpoint. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 13-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations, the description provides the essential orientation: what vendors are, ordering, and pagination. It does not mention the rich filtering capabilities (address, email, status, etc.), but the schema documents them fully, so the gap is minor.

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 all 13 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only calls out page and page_size and adds no filter semantics beyond that; the ordering note is useful but not parameter-specific.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('List vendors') and defines the domain object parenthetically as 'people selling a property,' which distinguishes vendors from generic people and properties. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as street_get_vendor or street_list_people, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like street_get_vendor or street_list_people, nor does it state when-not to use it. Pagination mechanics ('page with page and page_size') are mentioned, but that is parameter guidance rather than usage selection guidance.

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