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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral constraints: results never include prices or suppliers, and every trip is quoted as one package price by a human advisor. This goes beyond the structured annotations by clarifying what the data will not contain.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical behavioral caveat. Every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only listing tool with all parameters documented, the description covers the essential contents and exclusions. There is no output schema, but the itemized field list gives a solid sense of the return shape. It could mention pagination/ordering, but that is a minor gap.

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 the parameters q, limit, and country are already documented. The description adds context about the itinerary fields but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already gives, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 lists published sample itineraries Kratons operates, and enumerates the key fields (name, destination, duration, category, summary, day-by-day outline). This makes it readily distinguishable from siblings like list_destinations and search_experiences.

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?

It explicitly frames usage as 'to start a conversation from', which gives a clear context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when it applies.

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