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

Goes well beyond the annotations: says nothing is published immediately, the desk researches every suggestion, an already-covered place returns its page instead of a suggestion, and duplicate suggestions are recorded once. These are exactly the side-effect details annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) cannot convey. Minor tension with idempotentHint=false is explainable by same-place-not-same-args, so not a contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the routing condition, then the constraints. It is dense but slightly long, with the duplicate-recording and desk-research points repeated in spirit; still, nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

Given 8 parameters, an output schema, and mutation-style submission semantics, the description covers eligibility, evidence requirements, side effects, and duplicate handling. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by stressing that source_url must be the official site or another current page proving the place exists and is open, and by defining which place types are eligible. It does not deepen 'why', 'kind' or the lat/lng optionality beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource (suggest a place Meridian Dispatch has no page for) and enumerates the kinds of place in scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_guides, get_destination and get_place, which it names directly.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: only on traveller request or agreement, and only after search_guides or get_destination found nothing. Explicit when-not: not for the agent's own recommendations or plan entries. Also carves out exclusions (single restaurants, bars, shops vs. food streets/markets).

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