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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: it creates nothing, cannot book, the traveler supplies dates and headcount later in the planner, and the returned artifact is a planner link rather than a citable page. It does not cover rate limits or reuse semantics for the generated link.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then output, then boundaries. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is restated 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 a rich output schema and full annotation coverage, the description only needs to supply when-to-use and capability boundaries, which it does. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to set expectations for the user.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all six params well. The description adds real meaning on top: only city/vibe are baked into the link, while dates, travelers and kids' ages can be deferred to the planner, explaining why only city is required and how the optional params are used.

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 action and artifact: returns one guest-planner link with city/vibe prefilled plus a one-line description. It also draws the boundary against adjacent things (a booking, a citable guide page), so an agent can distinguish it from guide/search siblings without opening their 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?

"Use this when someone wants to start planning their own trip to a destination in WonderKit" gives an explicit trigger condition. It clarifies context but never names a specific sibling tool as the alternative when the user does not want a self-planning link, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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