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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: 'Keep unresolved constraints and unknown availability; results do not confirm a place' warns the agent not to over-trust results, which is exactly the kind of insight structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the core verb-resource stated first and constraints following. Sentences are dense and slightly cryptic in places, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one gap is that cursor/limit pagination behavior is never mentioned despite the cursor param existing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain age inclusivity and the Sunday=0..Saturday=6 mapping for days, plus the cross-field grouping rule, but it is silent on query, limit, cursor, locale, price, bounds, period and categories.

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: 'Search OiAir public activities'. An agent knows what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_offerings, which could plausibly be used for a similar browsing goal.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling is named. The semantic notes (age/day matching) describe result interpretation rather than helping the agent choose this tool over the alternatives.

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