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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the '(read-only)' tag is largely redundant. What the description does add is beyond the structured data: the deduplicated per-partner granularity with a tracked booking link, and the explicit empty-list outcome when no partner covers the city. Return-format detail is lighter than it could be, but an output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the sibling relationship and the empty-result behaviour packed in without filler. Every clause carries 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?

With rich annotations, full schema coverage and an output schema, the description needs only to establish scope and routing, which it does. It could have stated the explicit this-vs-experiences rule, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents both city and country with slug/name formats and the did_you_mean fallback. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or the optionality of country, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (attraction tickets, city passes, tour partners) with a scope qualifier ('verifiably cover a city') and the return granularity ('one entry per partner with a tracked booking link'). It also names the sibling `experiences` as the adjacent tool, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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?

Saying it 'Complements `experiences`' implies the division of labour but never states when to pick this over that sibling, nor any exclusion. 'Empty list when none covers the city' describes an outcome, not a usage rule. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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