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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful context by stating the return fields (name, location, price-from, canonical URL) and the domain of 'landings', which goes beyond the bare annotations. It does not contradict 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value (what it searches, example use cases, distinction from sibling, output fields). No waste or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only search tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, output highlights, and differentiation. The provided annotations and schema fill in remaining details, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 75%, and the description adds meaningful example query strings that help understand the 'query' parameter. While it doesn't explain offset/max_results/response_format beyond the schema, the examples provide practical value beyond the structured field descriptions.

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 action ('Search Tuki Hotel landings') and the resource ('pousadas, boutiques, hostels listed as /hotel/<slug>'). It also differentiates from the sibling tool search_accommodations, making the 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 provides concrete example queries ('donde alojarse en Ilha Grande', 'hotel boutique Santiago') and explicitly contrasts with search_accommodations, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are left ambiguous.

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