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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the tool only produces links and the server itself cannot persist or share anything, which corrects the expectation set by the name "continue".

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, no filler: the usage trigger leads, the return value follows, and the capability limitation closes it out. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields, and it still names what comes back. For a zero-required-parameter, read-only handoff tool the description is nearly complete; only the absence of explicit sibling routing (e.g., when to prefer plan_trip_link) leaves a small 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (city, slug) are fully documented in the schema, including format hints like "paris-france". The description mentions the city guide, itinerary, and guest planner, which loosely maps to the city/slug inputs but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the concrete output (WonderKit web links for the city guide, itinerary, and guest planner) and the trigger context, so an agent knows it is a link-handoff tool rather than a data fetcher. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from close siblings like plan_trip_link or get_itinerary, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition ("when someone wants to save, share, or keep working on a plan from a public guide or itinerary") and states a firm boundary ("This server cannot save or share anything itself"). No alternative sibling is named for cases where the user wants actual data rather than a handoff link.

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