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 structurally. The description adds the return shape (matching questions + answers + FAQ page URL), though an output schema exists, making that partly redundant. It does not discuss empty-result behavior when a search term matches nothing.

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?

Three tight sentences with the topic enumeration front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical topic list is dense but earns its place by revealing content scope; the return-value sentence is the only mild redundancy given the output schema.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the missing conceptual layer: what topics exist and what comes back. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against search_site and get_topic, which matters in a 17-tool surface.

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%, with the query parameter documented including examples ('Parken', 'hond') and the leave-out-for-all behavior, plus the language enum with its default. The description repeats only the optional-filter idea and adds nothing about query matching semantics or language affecting the returned URL.

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 resource (FAQ page Q&A) and enumerates the covered topics — check-in/out, seasonal house openings, slope distance, half board, dogs, parking, extra beds, cancellation, arrival — so an agent knows exactly what content lives here. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, so the boundary with search_site or get_topic must be inferred.

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 only usage cue is 'Optionally filter with a search term,' which implies this is a browse-all-by-default lookup. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_site for free-text queries or get_topic/hotel_info for structured property facts, and no stated prerequisites.

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