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

Well beyond the annotations, the description enumerates what comes back (guideId, name, service area, departure point, fish, equipment included, daily rate, trip total with the iscabox fee, deposit), states what is deliberately excluded (phone, email, Instagram), and always includes requestUrl. What it omits is pagination/result limits and how the iscabox fee is computed, which weakens but does not defeat an otherwise rich disclosure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the definition is a single long semicolon-chained sentence where return-field enumeration, privacy exclusions, and the empty-result fallback are stacked with equal weight. Each clause carries information, yet the density and lack of structure make the fallback guidance easy to miss.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, including privacy limits and the requestUrl contract. For a 7-parameter, all-optional search tool this is nearly complete; only result-count or pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 100%, so every parameter already carries its own description and the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning, mainly that supplying dates yields the trip total and the deposit, plus that place can be a river, dam, city, or beach; fish, people, kind, and page_path semantics come entirely from 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: fishing-boat guides and lodges registered in iscabox for a place in Brazil (river, dam, city, or beach). The resource and geographic scope are unambiguous, but it never names the sibling it is not (get_guide for a single guide, search_locations/search_destinations for place lookup), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit conditional guidance for the empty-result case: the same request (requestUrl, or request_booking without guide_id) makes the iscabox team search for a guide, which routes the agent to a named sibling. It does not say when to prefer this over get_guide or the search_* tools, so the main guidance gap is sibling selection.

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