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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: what a result contains (business details, listing links) and, importantly, that availability is not verified — a distinction the annotations cannot express.

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 doing distinct work: what it searches, what it returns, and what it explicitly does not do. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully summarizes result contents and the no-availability limitation, and annotations cover safety. It is nearly complete; only a pointer to the next step after selecting a vendor is absent, which is a minor gap.

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%, with the category enumeration, location slug format, and price_range values all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the same three filter names without adding syntax, defaults, or combination rules, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (searches) plus resource (published wedding vendors) and the three filter axes (category, location, price range). This cleanly separates it from sibling tools with different scopes such as search_venues, get_vendor_details, and list_vendor_categories.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion — 'does not check live availability or make bookings' — which tells the agent this is a discovery-only tool and that booking flows live elsewhere. It stops short of naming the follow-up tool (e.g. get_vendor_details) to use once a candidate is found.

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