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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some genuinely useful context — the currency (so'm), the trilingual search, and the empty-query behavior — but says nothing about result ordering, matching semantics, or failure modes.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the scope and domain come first and the operational note (languages) follows. Nothing restates the tool name.

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 read-only, no-required-parameter search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers domain, language, currency and the empty-query case. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or whether matching is substring or fuzzy.

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 all four parameters, including both enums, are already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter-adjacent contribution is the general note about the three languages and currency, which is a 3 baseline rather than added meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Search the price lists") and scopes it to EKO-IKSI plus its two partner clinics, listing the service categories covered. That is far more specific than any sibling tool, and an agent can tell immediately it is not search_articles or list_doctors.

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?

It implies usage through "Leave empty to list services" and notes that queries work in three languages, but it never states when to prefer this tool over clinic_information or list_doctors, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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