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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that supplying dates yields live total pricing, that only genuinely bookable options are counted, and that numDogs affects availability. It stops short of explaining failures or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then filters, then the date-driven pricing behavior, then the return hint. Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information with no 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?

For a 10-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers filters, the date/pricing interaction, and pagination context from the schema. Return values are only briefly characterized ('destination ids'), so the shape of the result list is not fully described, but nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing.

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 80% with strong per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying checkinDate/checkoutDate to live pricing and bookability, and by framing area/tags as the primary filter axes.

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 (Search) plus a concrete resource (HolidayFox UK holiday accommodation) and enumerates the accommodation types it covers. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_listing_details, get_quote, and check_availability without opening any 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?

Gives clear context for two modes: area/tag filtering and date-driven live pricing, and hints that returned destination ids feed the other tools. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over check_availability or get_quote, leaving the workflow chaining to inference.

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