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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: results are ranked by the directory's own ordering, pagination is 10 per page, vendors with unknown price/capacity/availability are kept, and each result includes a public storefront URL that should be linked. It also states the boundary of the data source (only published profiles), which is valuable context.

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 compact but information-dense, with each sentence serving a purpose: scope, when-to-use, filters, result behavior, and exclusion. The use of an em-dash for the storefront URL instruction and a final exclamation-like negative statement keep it structured and scannable.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the key return characteristics: 10 results per page in the directory's own ranking, presence of a storefront URL, and the handling of unpublished data. Combined with complete parameter documentation, this makes the tool's behavior and expected output sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke and use results correctly.

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 the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the filters into a coherent sentence and by reinforcing the key semantic that 'unknown is not a no' for price, capacity, and availability — a nuance not fully explicit in individual parameter descriptions.

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: 'Search Latido's public directory of Hungarian wedding vendors and venues' and lists concrete examples (photographers, venues, DJs, florists). It distinguishes itself as a directory search tool and clarifies its scope, which differentiates it from siblings like get_vendor or check_availability.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it whenever someone is looking for a supplier for a wedding in Hungary.' It also provides an exclusion — 'Does NOT search vendors who have not published a profile.' However, it does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., get_vendor for specific vendor lookup), so it stops short of fully explicit alternatives.

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