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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that responses are content-rich (photo, map links, coordinates), hinting at payload size, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown id or about language fallback.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the returned-field list is front-loaded before the id-provenance instruction. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the payload fields, which is the key thing an agent needs. It leaves minor gaps around failure modes and language fallback, but the tool is simple and read-only.

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 earns extra credit by adding provenance for attraction_id (it must come from search_attractions or get_city_guide), which is meaning the schema's example string does not convey. The language parameter is left entirely to the schema, which already handles it adequately.

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 resource and scope: 'Full details for one sight,' then enumerates exactly what comes back (long description, fact, photo, coordinates, map links, visit minutes, nearby sights with walking minutes). This clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like search_attractions or find_nearby_attractions.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Use the attraction id from search_attractions or get_city_guide,' which routes the agent through the correct discovery flow. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer a sibling instead, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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