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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining it 'Runs parallel search and AI prediction, merges results by relevance,' and discloses return values ('Service names and IDs'). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured, leading with the core purpose, then usage conditions, behavior, return value, and a follow-up recommendation. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 simple schema, good annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use, what it returns, and a next step. It could theoretically mention pagination or top_k behavior, but the schema covers that, so this is complete enough.

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%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description does not add extra parameter details; the 'text' param's flexibility (vague symptoms) is already in the schema. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the burden.

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: 'Smart service finder (text search + AI combined)' with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('services'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing vague symptoms and exploration before booking, making it clear this is for fuzzy discovery rather than precise lookup.

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 when' conditions are given: 'User has vague symptoms/descriptions OR you need to explore service options before booking.' This provides clear context for when to invoke it. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternative tool names, though it references 'advanced_search_availability' as a follow-up, implying a workflow.

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