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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that deals are curated and not live inventory, plus the 'from Australia' scope, which sets expectations. This is comparable to baseline transparency, but does not go beyond the annotation-covered safety profile.

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 concise sentences, no redundant words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple: 3 optional parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The description adequately covers purpose, scope (Australia), nature (curated deals), and the non-live-inventory caveat, making it complete for the given complexity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter comments (limit range, max price in AUD, destination examples). The description's 'destination and/or price criteria' echoes existing schema info without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('curated flight deals from Australia'), and specifies it matches deals by destination and/or price. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_deal or list_top_deals_from, but the verb 'search' differentiates it sufficiently.

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 provides clear context: it is for curated exceptional fares, not live inventory search, which tells the agent when to use it. It does not name alternatives like get_deal for specific deal details, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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