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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the search is worldwide and returns amenities, access methods, and ratings, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, result limits, or matching semantics. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with zero filler: action and scope first, return values second, usage intent last. Each sentence adds distinct information and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter search with rich annotations, the description covers what to query and what comes back, which matters given no output schema exists. Minor gaps are unstated result-limit or ordering behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single query parameter. The description's list of search fields restates the schema rather than adding new format or syntax guidance; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('airport lounges worldwide'), and enumerates the search dimensions (name, airport name, IATA code, city, country), which differentiates it from siblings like get_airport_lounges or find_lounges_by_access. It also states return content, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and what it is not.

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 sentence 'Use this to find specific lounges or discover lounges in a location' gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as get_airport_lounges for a known airport or find_lounges_by_access for access-based filtering, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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