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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses live-fetch latency (1–2 s, slower after deploys or on unblocker fallback), a 5-minute cache with a bypass flag, and — critically — that an empty match returns count 0 with an explanatory `note` and is a successful result, not an error. It also explains the price semantics (PLN, party-level lowest nightly price, club price, whether fees are included).

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?

Purpose and the sibling handoff are front-loaded, which is good, but the second half spends a large block enumerating the full result shape and every property field — content an output schema already provides. The price-semantics sentences earn their place; the exhaustive field list largely does not.

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 16-parameter, zero-required search tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: scope, filter axes, pagination, latency/caching behavior, price semantics, and empty-result handling. Nothing required to call it correctly or interpret its response is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds genuinely new meaning by stating that supplying dates restricts results to places actually free for that party and prices them for those nights, and that prices are PLN party-level values with extra fees on top. It does not add per-parameter detail for most filters (surroundings, amenities, pets), leaving that to the schema.

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 alohacamp.com, the Polish marketplace for stays in nature' — and immediately enumerates the covered property categories, so the agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming alohacamp_property as the detail-lookup path.

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?

It gives the routing rule to the sibling ('pass a property `slug` to alohacamp_property for details and exact per-unit prices') and describes the pagination contract (one page of 30, use `page` for more). It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this tool for X' exclusion, so a small amount is left to inference.

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