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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and open-world. The description adds that it returns a providers array and that provider_ids can be used downstream, giving practical behavioral context. It doesn't contradict annotations and contributes helpful integration details beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then give parameter hints and integration guidance. No redundancy or filler; every clause adds value.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return structure. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, lists optional filters, and notes downstream use. Minor absence of pagination or default-result limitations, but given the open-world annotation and simple schema, it is adequately complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three optional parameters and gives an example for query ('vertebrologist'), but provides minimal guidance on valid values for city/type, only implying type may align with the listed categories. This is some added meaning but not comprehensive.

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 the specific verb 'Find' and defines the resource as 'a venue in the Aurinia network,' listing example categories (doctor, hostel, spa). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like book or get_provider_info, which handle bookings or provider details.

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 states 'use a provider_id from it for get_availability / book,' indicating this tool is the preparatory lookup step before booking. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling get_provider_info. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is sufficient.

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