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

Annotations already declare the operation as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a bit of behavioral context by noting the optional proximity search, but it does not disclose behaviors like cursor pagination, tag-ALL semantics, or nearest-first ordering—though some of those appear in the parameter descriptions.

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 efficient sentence that fronts the primary action and resource, then enumerates the filter dimensions compactly. No filler or redundant elaboration.

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 existing output schema, full parameter documentation, and strong annotations, the description covers the core search intent well. The main completeness gap is the lack of explicit relationship to sibling tools, but the short description plus schema make the tool callable for a well-scoped destination search.

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 explains all parameters. The description adds a helpful high-level summary of the main filters, but it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the input schema already specifies.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Search') and resource ('a named destination's listings'), and lists the key filter dimensions: text, category, area, and tags. It could be more explicit about how it differs from sibling tools like destination_listing or search, but the core purpose 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as destination_listing, search, or destination_facets. It notes that facet slugs come from destination_facets and that destinations come from search_destinations (in the schema), but it does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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