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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses field-level visibility rules ('Phone is returned only to signed-in callers. Operator email is returned only to curators and admins') and pagination via cursor. Search implies read-only, but it could be more explicit about that and about ordering or limits.

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 dense and front-loaded: the search scope is stated first, then returned fields, then filters, then pagination, then visibility caveats. It is appropriately sized for an 11-parameter search tool, with no filler sentences.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what is needed: entity categories, joined place data, returned taxonomy fields, filter dimensions, pagination, and access-based field visibility. It does not describe the response envelope or pagination metadata in detail, but the core return fields are stated.

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 the schema already defines every parameter in detail. The description only restates the filter categories at a high level ('free text, taxonomy nodes, assets, bookability, region, or a bounding box') and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Search the Food Web asset map', and lists the entity categories covered (kitchen rentals, farms, markets, etc.). It is clearly a filtered search over many entities, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the single-entity sibling get_entity, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter list ('Filter by free text, taxonomy nodes, assets, bookability, region, or a bounding box'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent can infer that this is the search tool and get_entity is for single records, but the definition does not state that routing.

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