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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral scope: it searches only VoyageHacks content, covers about 680 pages per language, returns ranked matches with four specific fields, and does not return live fares or booking links. This gives an agent realistic expectations about results and limitations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and densely packs content scope, return format, use cases, and exclusions into only a few sentences. Every sentence earns its place given the need to differentiate this broad search tool from many siblings.

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?

The description covers what the tool searches, what it returns, when to use it, what it does not do, and how it relates to sibling tools. With a full input schema and output schema present, an agent has everything needed to decide when to call this tool and what results to expect.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, lang, limit, and section thoroughly. The description reinforces the search semantics at a high level but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Full-text search across the VoyageHacks travel guides' — and then enumerates the content categories covered. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it returns no booking or product links and is the first step before get_article.

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 states when the tool is useful: for questions needing published prices, comparisons, best-time-to-visit advice, or source-attributable step-by-step detail. It also gives clear exclusions — not the wider web, not live fares or hotel availability — and routes link-style queries to the get_..._links tools.

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