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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is a live search via DriveAway, returns specific fields (brand, name, sleeps/seats, 4WD, AUD pricing), and includes a booking_url deep-link. It also explains that each result is already complete, preventing redundant follow-up calls. This substantially supplements the readOnly/idempotent 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?

Three sentences that front-load the core action, follow with usage context, and finish with return-value details. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully describes the return contents and the booking link, which is essential for an agent to know what to expect. It also covers the geographic scope, the live nature, and the distinction from sibling tools, making the description complete for practical invocation.

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 descriptions already cover all 5 parameters with examples and ranges, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual semantics: 'Australia only' clarifies pickup_city validity, 'AUD price' implies currency expectations, and 'nightly and total' clarifies what the price amounts represent, going slightly beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search live campervan / motorhome hire availability and pricing' for a pickup city and travel dates. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool search_campsites, stating it is for RENTING rather than camping.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when the user wants to RENT a campervan, motorhome or RV' and contrasts directly with search_campsites. It also notes 'Australia only' as a hard constraint and clarifies that no separate resolve step is needed, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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