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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat those. It adds meaningful context about return contents (curated articles, itineraries, excerpts, canonical URLs) and the citable nature of the content, going 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 three sentences with no fluff, front-loads the main action, and packs relevant details (content type, use cases, return shape) into a compact space. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job explaining that results include excerpts and canonical URLs. However, it does not address the relationship to the sibling tool list_travel_guides_for_destination or mention filtering options like max_results/only_editorial, leaving a small completeness gap for a search tool with 4 parameters.

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?

The input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the semantics of query and destination ('by free text or destination') but adds no additional meaning for max_results or only_editorial beyond what the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search Tuki travel guides') and clearly specifies the content types (editorial blog + creator stories). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing free-text/destination search and citable editorial content, differentiating it from list and detail tools.

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 states when to use the tool with concrete example queries ('what to do in X', 'how to plan a trip to X', 'best activities in X'). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the use-case guidance 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.