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

The description indicates a read-only operation (search and return pages). No side effects or destructive actions are mentioned. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden; it is reasonably transparent about being a search operation, though it doesn't address rate limits or authentication.

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 a single sentence that is reasonably concise. It lists many examples, which adds length but also value by clarifying the types of queries. The sentence is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action ('Search... and return matching pages').

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 search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies what the tool searches, what it returns (pages with summary and prices), and gives example query terms. It does not detail output format or edge cases, but these are not critical for basic usage. Sibling tools add context, though the description itself is fairly complete.

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?

The schema covers two of three parameters (query and language) with descriptions, but limit lacks any schema description. The tool description adds value by providing example query values (e.g., 'Gatwick', 'wedding') which clarify expected input, but it does not explain the limit parameter. Overall, it adds some semantic context beyond the schema but not fully.

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's function: searching Tripyana's services and returning matching pages with summaries and prices. It also lists example service types and locations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transfer_price or list_day_trips that have narrower scopes.

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 implies use for general service discovery but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over more specific alternatives (e.g., get_transfer_price). The examples give practical hints but lack explicit guidance on selection criteria.

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