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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them by disclosing the return shape (visual cards containing image, rating, price level, and link), which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether the output fits the task.

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: purpose and return format first, usage condition second. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 8 fully documented params, a required category, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly, and it describes the return content in lieu of an output schema. The one meaningful omission is any differentiation from the overlapping sibling search tools.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters including the category enum, dates, and coordinates. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond echoing the category values, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search/discover) and enumerates the resources (hotels, restaurants, attractions, activities) plus the return format (rich visual cards). It's clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like search_hotels, search_attractions, or search_tours, so an agent has to guess which to call.

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 sentence 'Use this when the user wants suggestions or things to do/eat/stay near a place' gives real usage context, which implies when to reach for it. However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not name the overlapping alternatives (search_hotels, search_attractions, search_tours), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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