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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/no-open-world, and the description reinforces this by stating the result is derived solely from user input with no live price or geodata lookups. It also discloses that a ready-to-open planning URL is returned. It does not explain the output shape beyond listing artifacts.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the deliverables and followed by the key behavioral constraint. Every clause carries information.

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 12-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description usefully enumerates the returned artifacts in place of an output schema and bounds behavior to local computation. It leaves the interaction between reservePercent, budget and dailyCost unexplained, but the schema covers those fields.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (days, budget, dailyCost, reservePercent, departureDate semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming that only supplied inputs are used, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Erstellt") plus the concrete artifacts produced: Tagesplan, Budgetrahmen, Last-Minute-Prüfpunkte und eine Planungs-URL. It implicitly separates itself from compare_travel_offers by declaring it uses no live prices, but it never names a sibling tool outright.

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: "Nutzt nur deine Eingaben, keine Livepreise oder Ortsdaten" tells the agent this is a pure offline planning computation, which effectively excludes it from offer-comparison tasks. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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