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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that transfers/traslados are covered as rental vehicles, lists the exact output fields, and clarifies the gear rental exclusion with a specific alternative. This provides substantial behavioral context beyond the structured 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scope, output details, usage examples, and a clearly separated NOTE for the exclusion. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

With an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, output details, usage examples, and an important alternative for gear rental. It is complete for a search tool, given the structured metadata available.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description mentions filtering by free text or transmission, which aligns with query and transmission parameters, but does not add new meaning for offset, max_results, or response_format. It does not compensate beyond what schema already provides.

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 it searches Tuki rental cars and includes transfers/traslados. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying the resource type and provides concrete usage examples. The verb 'Search' is specific and the scope is 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?

Explicit usage guidance is given with example queries ('arrendar auto en San Pedro', 'rent a car Atacama', 'traslado/transfer'). It also explicitly states when NOT to use this tool (ski/snowboard gear rental) and directs users to the 'recommend' tool as an alternative, which is clear and actionable.

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