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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by noting the tool includes remote locations (e.g., Cochamó valley, Carretera Austral) and returns specific fields, which helps set expectations about coverage and output beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and scope, the second adds unique value (remote locations), the third outlines return fields, and the fourth gives an alternative. It is front-loaded with the most important information and has zero fluff.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (8 optional params, rich schema, output schema exists, comprehensive annotations), the description covers purpose, scope, return values, and a key alternative. Pagination and response format are already documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 88%, so the structured schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail, only reinforcing that search can be by 'text or destination' (mapping to query/destination). It does not explain offset, max_results, or response_format beyond what the schema provides, but the high schema coverage means this is acceptable.

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 structure: 'Search Tuki accommodations' and immediately clarifies scope with a detailed list of accommodation types (boutique lodges, refugios, hotels, cabins, hostels, unique stays). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling search_hotels by directing hotel landings to that tool, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: for searching accommodations by text or destination, especially in remote locations where major OTAs lack inventory. It also gives an explicit when-not: for Hotel landings, prefer search_hotels, naming the exact alternative tool. No other exclusions are needed given the simple read-only search context.

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