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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the search scope ('near latitude/longitude', 'supported market') and the shape of results, which is useful, but no rate limits, auth needs, or pagination behavior are described. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences: the search scope and result contents come first, and the disambiguation routing follows. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be re-explained, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema is fully documented. The description supplies purpose plus sibling routing, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, with limit, offset, and market documented regarding defaults, clamping, and enum values in the schema itself. The description references latitude/longitude and market but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('pandamart grocery/convenience stores') scoped by lat/long and market, and enumerates returned fields. It also explicitly names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from pandamart_store_search and pandamart_store without opening a schema.

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?

Directly routes the agent: 'Use pandamart_store_search for store filters, pandamart_store for one location, or foodpanda_search for restaurants.' Each alternative is named with the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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