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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states what fields are returned (name, type, city, country, category, duration, free-cancellation flag, summary) and what is never returned (prices or suppliers), plus the business rule that Kratons quotes one package price per trip. This is meaningful disclosure that helps set expectations.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence states the core function and filters; the second sentence lists the return fields and the key exclusion (prices/suppliers). Every clause earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is searched, what filters exist, what is returned, and what is excluded. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention pagination or default limit behavior, but the schema already documents limit defaults and max. Overall, an agent has enough to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (q, city, limit, country) with examples and constraints. The description adds the overall filtering concept ('filtered by country, city and free text') but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('search'), a clear resource ('Tours and tickets Kratons operates'), and explicit filtering dimensions (country, city, free text). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the exact fields returned and what is excluded (prices/suppliers), so an agent can tell it apart from list_destinations or list_sample_itineraries without opening the 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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when searching for Kratons-operated tours/tickets by country, city, or free text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_destinations for destination-only lookups'), but the context signals and sibling list make the use case reasonably clear. A small gap: no explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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