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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it emits a URL rather than executing a search or checking availability, so the agent knows no live data or side effects result. It stops short of describing URL format, validity of inputs, or error behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope constraint. Every sentence carries information, though the category enumeration reads as a loose list rather than integrated guidance.

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 URL-builder with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but leaves real gaps: locale/currency/query semantics are unstated, and the mentioned category list does not match the schema's free-form string parameter, which could mislead.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only meaningfully documents destination ('supported destination ID/name or worldwide') and hints at category values; query, locale (enum), and currency (3-char code) are left completely opaque in both schema and description.

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.' The clause 'This does not execute a search or check availability' effectively separates it from the search_guides sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied: the negative statement ('does not execute a search or check availability') tells the agent this is for link construction, not data retrieval, which is the main when-not. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or routing to read_guide/search_guides for actual content.

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