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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the output format (one-paragraph summary and published prices), which goes beyond the schema. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral detail that helps the agent anticipate what the tool returns.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides a rich list of examples to clarify scope. Every part earns its place – no filler or repetition. It's concise and readable.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and safety covered by annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what is returned (matching pages with summary and prices). It does not mention pagination, ordering, or the limit parameter's behavior, but these are minor given the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core purpose and output.

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 67% (query and language have descriptions, limit does not). The description adds no information about any parameters – it doesn't mention limit's range or meaning, nor that language restricts to en/ar. Since the limit parameter is undocumented in the schema and the description doesn't compensate, the agent lacks clarity on a key constraint. The description does not add value beyond the schema for the covered parameters.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('Tripyana's services'), and the return type ('matching pages with a one-paragraph summary and published prices'). The explicit list of service categories (airport transfers, cruise transfers, etc.) distinguishes it from siblings like get_transfer_price or list_day_trips, which are price-specific or list-specific. It's unambiguous what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., get_transfer_price, get_meet_greet_price). The description implies a general search but does not state that for a specific price quote one should use a dedicated price tool, or that list_day_trips is for a full list. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the tool names.

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