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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: diacritics-insensitive matching and Polish-only data requiring Polish query terms. It still omits filter-combination semantics, behavior with no filters, and result ordering, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core search behavior and followed by two critical operational notes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a four-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the critical language quirk but leaves meaningful gaps: limit semantics, filter combination behavior, and what happens when no filters are supplied. It is adequate but not 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 is expected to compensate. It explains what the query searches over (name, address, description) and mentions country and type, but says nothing about the limit parameter or how multiple filters combine.

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 (Search) and resource (restaurants and attractions) and names the searchable fields, making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_location or list_countries, but the search-vs-fetch distinction is reasonably inferable.

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 'Search ... by text, country and/or type', but the description never states when to use this tool versus get_location or list_countries, nor does it name any alternative. The agent is left to infer that this is the broad discovery tool.

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