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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: only public guides are accessible, only existing published language versions are used, and there is an English fallback. It does not disclose every edge case, but the additions are meaningful and non-contradictory.

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 with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds essential language behavior without redundancy.

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, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description covers the essential decision factors: what it reads, the public scope, supported guide levels, and language fallback. The parameter schema and output schema cover the remaining invocation details.

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 not fully present in the schema: it restricts locations to city, region, or country guides and explains that the language parameter falls back to English when a requested published version is unavailable. This supplements the 50% schema coverage, although the individual parameter descriptions already document location formats and the language enum.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names a precise resource: a public Salsa Vida city, region, or country guide summary plus its canonical link. The guide scope inherently distinguishes it from sibling event and location-search tools, even without an explicit comparison.

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 description gives clear context: use this when you want to read a public guide summary rather than search for locations or events. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative siblings, but the schema's location description complements this by pointing to search_locations for disambiguation.

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