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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ("compact rows" with name, category, area, hours, amenities, slug, url), which tells the agent this is a lightweight summary list rather than full records. It stops short of mentioning pagination behavior or the default row cap, which the schema carries instead.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, return shape, then sibling routing. Front-loading the verb and resource means an agent can decide on the first clause alone.

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 12-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description closes the remaining gaps by stating what the rows contain and where to go for deeper or ranked results. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so every one of the 12 parameters is already documented with examples and defaults. The description's parenthetical list of criteria (zone, category, Wi-Fi, outlets, quiet, calls, open now/at a time, near a point) largely restates those schema fields, though the "explicit criteria vs. name/keyword" framing does clarify the split between q and the boolean filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ("list or filter Las Vegas work spots") and immediately enumerates the filterable dimensions plus the free-text alternative. It also names what it is not (recommend_spot, get_spot), so an agent can distinguish it from all relevant siblings without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit routing: use this for explicit criteria or name/keyword lookups, use recommend_spot for "what's best for me" questions, and use get_spot with a slug for one place's full details. Both alternatives are named with the exact condition that selects them, leaving nothing to inference.

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