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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description needn't repeat safety traits. The description explains the search and filter behavior but does not add extra context such as pagination/ordering, though the schema's cursor parameter conveys the pagination mechanism.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word 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?

Given the tool is a read-only simple search with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description is adequate for an agent to use it correctly. The only minor gap is that the destination parameter is not explicitly marked required in the description, but the schema's required list handles that.

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%, with all parameters documented. The description's mention of 'filtered by text' overlaps with the 'query' field description and adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 states a specific verb 'Search' with a named resource 'destination's FAQs' and an optional filter. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'venue_faq' by scoping to destination, so an agent knows which tool to pick without inspecting schemas.

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 clearly identifies the context: searching FAQs for a named destination. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool over siblings like venue_faq, but the destination scope and the schema's note to call search_destinations imply the right usage pattern.

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