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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the content is sourced from an external booking partner and is explicitly NOT duplicated in the operator's own directory, which matters for trusting results. It stops short of describing result shape or matching behaviour.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the positive/negative usage rules. No filler, no repetition of what the schema or annotations already state.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, an agent has everything it needs to invoke correctly: query intent, scope, exclusions, and the provenance caveat. Only a brief note on what results look like is absent, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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%, including a worked example ('things to do near Jervis Bay'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, format or default-value detail beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema is fully documented.

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 verb and resource plus the content domain: 'Search curated tourism content (attractions, things to do, local experiences, events) from our booking partner.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the accommodation siblings, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema. The misleading title ('Caravan park booking info') is a naming flaw, but the description text itself is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('what's on / things to do near X' style questions) and an explicit exclusion (NOT for campsite/accommodation booking), which is strong routing guidance. It loses a point for gesturing at 'the other bk_ tools' collectively rather than naming the actual alternative such as bk_search_operators or search_campsites.

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