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

The readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations already establish safety. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying it returns a summary and a 'live mcp_endpoint', and only for published destinations. No contradiction between description and annotations.

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?

One compact sentence states the action, resource, filter, and lookup key. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or contextual preamble for the agent to wade through.

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 a complete parameter schema, read-only annotations, and a description stating both the input (slug) and expected return fields (summary and live mcp_endpoint), the agent has enough to call the tool correctly. It does not cover error cases like an invalid slug, but for a simple getter that is a minor gap.

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?

The single parameter destination_slug has full schema coverage, including how to obtain it via search_destinations. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning beyond 'by its slug', so it mainly repeats the schema rather than enhancing it.

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 is specific: 'get one published destination's summary and live mcp_endpoint by its slug.' It names the exact resource, the lookup key, and the returned output. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from search-style or overview siblings even without naming them.

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 implies the tool is for fetching a single known destination rather than searching, and the schema guides agents to obtain the slug from search_destinations. However, the description itself does not state when to prefer this over siblings like destination_overview or destination_guide, and it includes no exclusion criteria.

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