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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it highlights the 'real-time inventory' from the Bookeasy platform and mentions that returning operator_id values are needed by other bk_ tools. This gives the agent insight into the data source and downstream dependencies without contradicting the annotations.

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 four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating what the tool does, when to use it, how it differs from a sibling, and example user triggers. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence contributes to the agent's decision-making. No redundant or filler content.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, usage triggers, relationship to other tools, and return value (operator_id). It could mention the default/max limit or pagination, but these are already in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a note about output structure would have made it more complete.

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% for all 4 parameters (latitude, longitude, limit, within_km), so the schema already explains the parameters. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond stating the search is 'near a location', which is already implied by the lat/long parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to.

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 tool's function: 'Find LIVE-BOOKABLE accommodation operators near a location via the Bookeasy booking platform (real-time inventory).' It uses a specific verb ('Find'), identifies the resource ('LIVE-BOOKABLE accommodation operators'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'search_campsites' by noting the distinction between real-time inventory and the directory. This makes it unambiguous and distinguishable.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user wants to actually BOOK and needs live availability/pricing' and 'Prefer this when the user says things like "book", "reserve", "is it available", or asks for real prices for specific dates.' It also names the alternative 'search_campsites' and clarifies the difference, giving the agent clear situational rules.

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