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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It usefully adds the return shape — citation-ready IDs, titles, canonical URLs — which matters because no output schema exists. It does not mention result limits, pagination, or ranking behavior.

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 sentences, no filler. The usage condition is front-loaded and the return detail follows, so an agent can decide and act after one read.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and a one-parameter read-only search needs little else. The remaining gap is operational: no indication of result counts, pagination, or whether some entity types are searched by default.

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 single 'query' parameter is already documented. The description still adds real value by clarifying what the query is matched against (trips, segments, documents), implying one keyword query spans multiple entity types. Only the syntax itself is left unspecified.

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) plus the resource scope: the user's own trips, itinerary segments, and travel documents by keyword. This implicitly separates it from catalog search siblings like places_search or search_hotels, which query external inventories rather than user data. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 trigger condition: 'Use this when the user wants to search their trips, itinerary segments, or travel documents by keyword.' That is a clear when-to-use. It offers no when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., mentions_search for @-mentions), so it falls short of the top mark.

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