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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the query is fuzzy across translations, slug, and code; empty query returns all; each result includes specific price fields with definitions. This provides the agent with a full picture of what the tool returns and how it behaves.

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 tight sentences: one for scope, one for query behavior, one for output format and follow-up. No redundant phrasing, and the most important semantics are front-loaded before the field listing.

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?

The description fully covers the single optional parameter, the result item structure, and the recommended follow-up tool. With an output schema already present and annotations declaring read-only idempotent behavior, there are no meaningful missing details for an agent to call this correctly.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'query' with a default, so the description carries the full semantic burden. It explains what the query matches (name in 17 languages, slug, ISO code) and that empty query lists everything, which is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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'), the resource ('destinations'), and the scope ('on sale'), and explains exactly what query matches against: name in 17 languages, slug, or ISO code. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_plans and create_checkout without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 gives clear usage context: empty query lists everything, and query matches certain fields. It also provides a natural next step with 'Continue with get_plans(slug)'. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, but the workflow guidance makes usage clear.

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