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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the output semantics ('Returns result ids for fetch') and notes the directory is 'public', which offers useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide the alternative. No filler or redundant wording; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter search tool with thorough annotations and an output hint, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use a different tool. No additional context seems necessary.

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 a well-described 'query' parameter (free-text query — vendor name, category or place). The description does not add meaningful additional parameter detail beyond restating that it's free-text search. This meets the baseline for full-schema coverage.

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 the tool performs a free-text search over a specific directory ('Latido's public Hungarian wedding vendor directory'), distinguishes it from the filtered search alternative ('search_vendors'), and specifies the output ('Returns result ids for fetch'). This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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?

Explicitly says 'For filtered search (category, place, budget, capacity, date) prefer search_vendors', providing a direct when-not-to-use instruction and naming the alternative. This makes usage guidelines crystal clear.

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