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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Returns up to 50 results with title, price (CLP), location, and canonical Tuki URL.' It also implies pagination via schema but doesn't repeat annotation info. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded: purpose first, then examples, then clear routing rules. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or redundancy. The structure with an explicit 'Routing rule' makes it highly scannable.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, what it returns, how to route among sibling tools, and concrete example queries. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for a single-vertical experience search.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description mentions the key search dimensions ('by text query, destination, or type') which maps to query, destination, and type parameters, but adds little beyond schema. It does not repeat parameter details, which is fine given high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Search Tuki experiences and tours (treks, day tours, multi-day, workshops, adventure activities) by text query, destination, or type.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling search tools (e.g., search_hotels, search_car_rental). Examples like 'tours in Cochamó' and 'trekking Patagonia' reinforce the intended use.

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 provides usage guidance and alternatives: 'Use for queries about ... any tour/activity recommendation. Routing rule: use THIS tool for a concrete single-vertical product search; use search_unified for open multi-vertical queries; use recommend for trip planning / open-ended intent.' This clearly tells when to use this tool vs. siblings.

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