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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the geographical scope and priority filtering, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as result size, ordering, or response shape. It does not contradict 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 primary action ('List Tuki destinations'), and includes the key filter options without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place, making it concise and easy to scan.

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 description covers the core purpose and filters, which is sufficient for a list tool with optional parameters and no output schema. However, it does not mention what fields a returned destination includes or that responses can vary in detail via response_format. Given the presence of get_destination_detail as a sibling, the list tool likely returns summaries, but this is not stated, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 coverage is 67%, with country and priority_only having descriptions. The description reinforces the intent of these filters and adds concrete examples of priority destinations (e.g., Torres del Paine). It does not explain response_format, but the enum values 'concise' and 'detailed' are self-explanatory. Overall, the description adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List Tuki destinations across Chile and Latin America.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on listing destinations with optional filters. The scope and filter options are included, making the tool's 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 implies usage for listing destinations with optional filters, providing context about the geographic scope and priority filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_unified or list_solutions) or mention any exclusions, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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