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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds beyond that: the 'published' pre-filter scope and the behavioral fact that each result carries an mcp_endpoint to be traversed for listings, events, and guides. No contradiction with annotations; it could add pagination-limit behavior but the cursor mechanism is already in the schema.

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 sentence with zero waste: core verb/resource first, then the conditional listing behavior, then the forward-linking instruction that arranges the results. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 output schema covers return shape, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema documents all params and pagination, the single sentence is nearly sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that it doesn't mention a natural 'when to prefer get_destination vs search_destinations', so a small edge remains.

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 fully documents limit, query, and cursor including defaults, ranges, and the 'omit to list all' note. The description only restates the query param's same behavior and adds nothing material about the other parameters, so the baseline 3 is correct; the description neither fails to compensate nor elevates beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search published travel destinations by name') plus a clear condition ('omit the query to list all'). The mcp_endpoint note differentiates it from sibling content tools like destination_listings, destination_events, and destination_guide, which fetch what this tool points to. An agent can identify what this tool does and what it is not without opening 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?

Gives one concrete usage condition (omit query to list all destinations) and a follow-up action (connect to each result's mcp_endpoint). However, it never states when not to use this tool relative to the 21 siblings such as search, get_destination, search_venues, or list_cities, so the switch/selection logic 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.