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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description's added value is the currency resolution chain (argument, then query tokens like 'dollar'/'AED', else EUR) and the warning that a hotel result carries a price note rather than a price. Those are real behavioral traits beyond the structured fields, though pagination/ordering behavior is not disclosed.

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?

The scoping facts (what is searchable, currency fallback, hotel price note, exclusions) are front-loaded and mostly waste-free, but the dense single paragraph with stacked parenthetical examples is harder to scan than a short structured list would be.

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, single-query search with an output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: scope, currency resolution, default language, result granularity, and the explicit boundary of the index. Return-value detail is rightly delegated to the output schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends it: it explains that currency can be inferred from the query text and what the fallback is, plus that Turkish queries are accepted for the language dimension. It adds meaning the schema's terse 'Price currency.' does not.

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 and resource ('Free-text search over published MBD Travel tours, experiences, hotels and the Dubai visa') and explicitly names what is out of scope (flights, transfers, booking, payment), which separates it from siblings like search_tours, search_transfers and quote_transfer without opening a 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 and a de-facto routing rule via the exclusions ('Flights, transfers, booking and payment are not in the index'), which points an agent to the transfer/flight siblings. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or stating when to prefer get_tour/list_hotels over a broad search.

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