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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context on top: the search corpus (directory plus hosted sites), the conditional behavior that dates unlock live availability and total stay price for the party, and that a slug is returned for chaining. It omits result ordering and pagination behavior for the limit parameter.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then filters, then return value — a clean order with no filler. The middle clause enumerates filter fields that the schema already names individually, which is a minor redundancy but also reinforces the query syntax.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema search tool with solid annotation coverage, the description covers corpus, filter axes, the pricing/availability condition, and the returned identifier. It does not explain default limit behavior, result ordering, or empty-result handling, which keeps it below 5.

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 90%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents query, country, amenities, dates and party counts. The description still adds value by grouping them into filter modes and, importantly, explaining that supplying check_in/check_out switches the tool from directory lookup to live availability plus total stay price — a behavioral link the schema does not state.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource and, unusually, the corpus it searches: 'the public directory plus every Campiamo-hosted campsite website'. That scope sentence is what separates it from get_campsite. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not (e.g. 'for one site's details use get_campsite'), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Implies usage through 'Filter by free text ... and, with dates, live availability and total stay price', which tells an agent when dates matter. It never addresses the unresolved overlap with check_availability and get_quote, both of which also appear to be date/price paths, and gives no when-not guidance. The closing 'Returns each campsite's slug for the other tools' is the only hand-off cue.

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