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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds scope details but no deeper behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or auth requirements, which would be useful but not required given the annotations.

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 plus a compact args list, with the purpose front-loaded. No wasted words or redundant 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?

For a simple search tool with good annotations and only two parameters, the description covers purpose and parameters. It could mention output shape or sorting behavior, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of openWorldHint.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: query with an example and max_results with its default. This adds practical meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 searches TripAdvisor for restaurants, attractions, or hotels with reviews. It specifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like search_airbnb, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus search_airbnb or search_hotels. It does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts, such as 'use this for TripAdvisor data' or 'use search_hotels for broader hotel coverage'.

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