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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetches operator details,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention any side effects, error behavior, or special requirements beyond an operator ID. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the use case, and every sentence adds value. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use, and gives a glimpse of the output fields ('name, code, and terms & conditions'). It is mostly complete, though it could mention edge cases (e.g., invalid operator ID) or explicitly confirm the read-only nature. Overall, it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 description adds meaning by saying fetch details are 'based on operator ID,' which clarifies the role of the sole parameter. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate by explaining the ID format or its origin (e.g., from a search tool). It does list the returned details, giving some context, but the parameter semantics are only partially covered.

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 fetches operator details (name, code, terms & conditions) based on operator ID, using a specific verb ('fetches') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tourradar_algolia-operator-search, which is for searching operators, by focusing on retrieving details for a specific operator.

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 first sentence gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when the user wants information about a tour operator, such as their terms and policies.' This is clear, but it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly reference alternative tools, so it misses the full 'when-not' guidance.

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