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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: result ordering (best match first), the fields returned (product ID, city, lowest price), pagination (up to 50 results per page), and an auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). Rate limits and error behavior are not covered, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then returns, workflow, pagination and auth in a compact block with no filler. Minor grammar awkwardness ('with price from') slightly hurts readability but not substance.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden well by naming the returned fields, ordering, and page size, plus the auth prerequisite. It stops short of return-shape details like total counts or error cases, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, city and limit. The description restates the text/city filtering but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource (search experiences) and scopes it to attractions, museums and tours on Tiqets, filtered by text and city. It also names the sibling tools (get_experience, check_availability) it feeds into, so an agent can distinguish it from those without opening a 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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the results ('Use product_id in get_experience and check_availability'), establishing the search-then-detail workflow. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a sibling search comparison, but for a search entry point the routing guidance is clear.

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