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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only query by stating 'Find' and describing the output, but does not explicitly declare it as non-destructive or mention any authentication/rate limits. The output fields are listed, but behavioral traits like idempotency or error conditions are omitted.

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 two short sentences and a sentence listing output fields, all front-loaded and free of fluff. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given 9 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema that likely documents return structure, the description covers the essential search modes and filters. It lacks pagination details and coordinate precision, but overall is sufficient for a search 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains lat/lng, radius_miles, city, state, tag, and open_now, but leaves limit and offset undocumented. While the main parameters are covered, the missing ones are important for pagination, and coordinate format is not clarified.

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 clearly states 'Find Indian beauty salons' with specific service examples (threading, henna/mehndi, hair, bridal), making the resource and purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like search_salons_by_text and get_salon_details by focusing on direct filtering rather than text search or details 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 description explains how to use the tool: provide a point (lat/lng + radius_miles) or city/state, and filter by tag or open_now. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_salons_by_text or get_salon_details, nor when not to use it.

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