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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: packages live on dedicated /packages/ pages, include preview hotel, ticket category, and sometimes experience list, and 'Prices include all package components.' These specifics clarify what results will contain and how pricing works.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then gives a compact list of filtering dimensions, and ends with a direct usage guideline. Every sentence contributes unique information 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 search tool with no output schema, the description explains what packages include (preview hotel, ticket category, sometimes experience list) and that prices include all components, giving the agent a solid picture of the return content. It does not mention pagination or default limit behavior, but the schema's limit parameter defines constraints, so the omission is 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 50%, and the description meaningfully supplements the category and package_type enums by listing common values and their meanings (e.g., 'f1 (Formula 1 race weekends)', 'city_multi (multi-event city trips)'). However, parameters like limit, currency, and date range are not fully described in the tool description, leaving gaps that the schema descriptions don't fully fill for those missing ones.

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 states the tool's function: 'Search hand-curated trip packages bundling event tickets + hotel + experiences with savings vs DIY booking.' It identifies the resource (trip packages) and the specific action (search), and explicitly differentiates from sibling search_events by directing users to 'use search_events' for raw event inventory.

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 guidance is direct and actionable: 'Use this when the user wants a complete trip recommendation' and 'For raw event inventory only, use search_events.' This explicitly contrasts the tool with its primary alternative, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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