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

With no annotations the description must carry the load, and it does disclose the return shape in detail, including the notable currency rule (EUR unless overridden by the city) and integer-cents representation. It omits read-only/public nature, pagination, and volume expectations, which for an index tool is a real but bounded gap.

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 the resource identity, then usage. The first sentence is a long enumeration but every item is substantive; the parenthetical currency note earns its place.

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 one-optional-param listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the currency convention, which is the main correctness trap. Missing pagination/ordering detail keeps it from 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?

The single `lang` parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'names' hints at translation but never connects it to the lang tag, adding marginal value beyond the schema.

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?

It defines the resource precisely ('the public index: every published itinerary') and enumerates exactly what each entry carries (slugs, title, summary, step counts, cost sum, currency). This clearly separates it from the single-item sibling get_published_itinerary.

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?

'Use it to discover which (city, persona) weekends exist' gives an explicit selection rule for this tool over the getter siblings. It never names an alternative or an exclusion, so it falls just short of a 5.

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