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 so thoroughly. It discloses specialism taxonomy matching/interpretation/unmatched behavior, target_industry relaxation when fewer than 5 match, budget_band's non-exclusion semantics, the never-pay-to-rank ranking policy, and response fields including totalMatched.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers edge cases and response guarantees. Every sentence contributes necessary semantic detail; there is no filler or repetition of obvious schema facts.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description wisely explains return contents: ranked agencies, slug, name, legal_name, rationale in Dutch, totalMatched, and filter-interpretation signals like interpreted_as, unmatched, note, and relaxed. Combined with 100% schema coverage and no required parameters, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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?

Although the schema already documents all parameters, the description adds significant behavioral meaning: budget_band only excludes agencies with known conflicting rates, near_* must be combined with within_km and is ignored otherwise, specialisms are taxonomy-mapped, and target_industry relaxes under low match counts. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Search Dutch marketing agencies', then enumerates the exact filter dimensions. It also differentiates itself from get_agency_profile by noting returned slugs are for use there, so an agent can distinguish this search tool from profile retrieval.

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 intended use is clear: search agencies by filters and get ranked results. It explicitly points to categories://list for valid values and to get_agency_profile as the follow-up step. It does not explicitly contrast with find_agency, but the search-vs-profile distinction and the filter-rich context leave little ambiguity.

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