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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the whitelabel widget nature, the lack of direct API booking, the need to route users to URLs, and the English-only limitation on service titles/descriptions despite the language param. These are key behavioral traits beyond what the schema reveals.

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 three sentences, starts immediately with the purpose, and every sentence adds value: scope, behavioral constraints, and localization caveat. No filler or 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 listing tool with no output schema and simple parameters, the description fully covers purpose, usage, return behavior (URLs), and important edge cases (language/currency behavior). It is self-contained and leaves no significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, particularly the caveat that language translations do not apply to service titles/descriptions, and that currency conversion is approximate with EUR as the binding price. This enriches the parameter understanding.

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 specific verb ("List") and resource ("affiliate booking services") with explicit categories, and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on whitelabel widgets rather than content, careers, or tours. It unambiguously identifies the platform domain (sparklingtracks.com).

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 provides clear usage direction: route the user to the returned URL for booking, and explicitly notes that direct API booking is not supported. It implies when to use this tool (when affiliate service listings are needed) and gives a practical constraint, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, which are unrelated enough that exclusion is implicit.

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