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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false. The description adds useful boundary context: it clarifies that no search is executed and no availability is checked, which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid mistaking this for a live query tool.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first clause. Each sentence contributes (action, destination, categories, negative behavior), though the middle sentences are slightly telegraphic.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description leaves three parameters (query, locale, currency) undocumented anywhere, and never states explicitly that a URL string is returned. The core purpose and side-effect boundary are covered, so it is minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It does add real value for two parameters – destination accepted values ('supported destination ID/name or worldwide') and category enumerations ('all, attractions, tours and day-trips') – but says nothing about query, locale, or currency.

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 verb and resource ('Build a TicketGlide website search URL') and the contrast with search_guides is implied by 'This does not execute a search.' An agent can tell it produces a link rather than results, though siblings aren't named explicitly.

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?

Use case is implied – generate a shareable search URL rather than run a search – but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative among read_guide/search_guides. The negative statement ('does not execute a search or check availability') is the only routing help.

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