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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered; "Read-only" in the description merely repeats this. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that this is static policy content to be surfaced to the traveller before booking, but says nothing about freshness, scope of applicability, or failure modes.

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 scope and content inventory; every clause carries information about what the tool returns. Minor waste in the trailing "Read-only," which duplicates the annotation.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the policy topics covered. An agent has enough to decide to call it and to relay the content to a traveller.

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, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 names a specific resource (MAPL Tours Jamaica booking terms) and enumerates the content it returns: pricing, notice, flight tracking, cancellation/refunds, payment methods, contact. This clearly separates it from the action-oriented siblings (start_tour_booking, get_transfer_quote), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Tell the traveller the cancellation terms before they book" gives a concrete when-to-use trigger tied to the booking flow. It is clear context but stops short of naming alternatives or stating when this tool is NOT the right one (e.g., for a specific tour's terms).

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