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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it searches both the public directory and every Campiamo-hosted website, and it returns slugs for use with other tools. It also discloses that live availability and total stay price are included when dates are provided, which is beyond the schema. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, and every clause adds information. It efficiently covers what is searched, the filters, the date-dependent behavior, and the return value (slugs) without 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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, filters, and the key return value (slugs). It doesn't describe pagination or the exact response structure, but the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) and the mention of slugs make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly. A small gap is the lack of detail on how limit works or what happens with no query, but these are minor.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds a little context by grouping filters (free text, country, amenities, dates) and noting that dates enable live availability and total stay price, but it doesn't add meaning for the few undocumented parameters (e.g., limit). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource (campsites, glamping sites, holiday parks using Campiamo), and explicitly lists the search dimensions (free text, country, amenities, dates, live availability, total stay price). It also distinguishes itself by noting it returns slugs for the other tools, which helps differentiate it from siblings like check_availability and get_campsite.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when searching for campsites across the Campiamo directory and hosted websites, with optional filters. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list and the mention that it returns slugs for other tools provide context. A clear exclusion or alternative mention would push it to 5.

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