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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the user completes payment on Tuki.cl and that Tuki handles secure payment (Webpay), which clarifies the external handoff and that the tool only generates a URL. It also implies the URL is pre-loaded with parameters, adding value beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the payment context. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

The tool is simple, with full schema coverage and strong annotations. The description covers the purpose, usage context, and payment handoff. Although there is no output schema, the tool's behavior (building a URL) is clear from the description itself, making it complete for the agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats that travelers count and date are optional and mentions 'experience or accommodation slug,' but this adds no meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 builds a canonical Tuki checkout/detail URL for a given product slug, distinguishing it from sibling search/detail tools. It also includes the specific use case of converting an LLM recommendation into a booking, making its purpose 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?

The description explicitly recommends this tool for converting an LLM recommendation into a booking, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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