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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: trips are 'enquiry-led: no price is quoted and no payment is taken online,' which tells the agent not to expect or attempt transactional actions. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or pagination, but for a read-only catalogue listing the disclosed traits are the ones that matter.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource before the usage rule and the sibling boundary. Every clause carries information; none is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does so concretely (venues, courses, hotel, nights, rounds, max group size, page link). Combined with the enquiry-led disclosure and the sibling boundary, an agent has everything needed to select and call it 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the shape of the result set (courses, hotel, nights, rounds, max group size, link), which is useful but not a parameter concern.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ... golf trips') and immediately enumerates what the listing contains (venues, courses, hotel, nights, rounds, group size, page link). It also explicitly scopes itself against the sibling list_tours, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 this for any golf enquiry' is an explicit use condition, and 'Golf trips are separate from the cricket tours in list_tours' names the alternative and the boundary that selects it. Nothing about when to pick this vs list_tours is left to inference.

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