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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that the search goes through Bookeasy and that content is not in the local directory, which helps set expectations about data source and scope. It does not mention return format or specific error behavior, but the annotations plus description are fairly transparent for a read-only search tool.

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?

The description is three sentences, each carrying distinct value: action/resource, usage guidance, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, uses dashes for readability, and avoids redundant phrasing.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool with only two well-documented parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides complete context: purpose, content type, usage, and explicit exclusion. Combined with sibling tool names, the agent can select and invoke this tool with confidence.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' fully described including an example. The tool description reinforces the query style (e.g., 'things to do near X') but does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is self-sufficient.

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 states a specific action ('Search curated tourism content') and enumerates content types (attractions, things to do, local experiences, events). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting this is NOT for campsite/accommodation booking and references 'the other bk_ tools', making it clear what this tool does not do.

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 explicit usage guidance: use it for 'what's on / things to do near X' style questions, and explicitly says NOT for campsite/accommodation booking, pointing to the other bk_ tools as alternatives. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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