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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: a default result count ('6 results unless limit'), ordering ('cheapest first'), the per-vehicle pricing model, and what is explicitly excluded from the price — genuinely useful context an agent could not infer from the 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 content is valuable but delivered as a long, clause-heavy sentence with nested parentheses; the core resource definition is front-loaded, yet the pricing and exclusion details read as a run-on rather than structured, scannable guidance.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is appropriately omitted, and the description covers pricing, defaults, and the booking handoff. It still leaves gaps for a 9-parameter search tool: what query and theme actually filter on, and behavior when no plans match, are unaddressed.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry more weight. It does explain startDate's role (dating each ride and the booking link) and documents the default limit, and the parenthetical gestures at arrive and pace. But query, theme, maxPrice, and days get no added semantics beyond their enum/range constraints, leaving several search controls underspecified.

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 conveys what the tool returns: multi-day private-driver ride plans (1-7 days) departing from Beaune, priced per vehicle as the sum of rides. It distinguishes the resource well but is written as narrative rather than a crisp verb+resource statement, and never contrasts itself with siblings like find_events or plan_wine_day that an agent might also consider.

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?

Usage is implied through the workflow handoff — 'request_booking takes the plan's id as trip' — and through scope clarification that this is transport only, with hotels/tastings/meals booked separately. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus find_events, find_prices, or plan_wine_day, nor any exclusions.

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