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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond those: it explains the ranked-list output format, personalization based on persona/traveler type, currency handling, and the empty-list behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences long, each earning its place: first sentence defines the output, second explains curation logic, third gives usage guidance with siblings, and fourth notes empty-list behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and result, and no sentences are wasted.

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?

Given the complexity of 10 parameters, no output schema, and the need to differentiate among multiple tools, the description is remarkably complete. It fully describes the return value's structure, personalization, currency handling, and edge case behavior, filling the gap left by the absent output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by connecting 'nightly price (in the requested currency)' to the currency parameter, explaining the 'persona/traveler-type fit score' tied to persona and traveler_type, and giving concrete examples like 'long-stay nomad apartments' for traveler_type. This enriches parameter understanding without fully explaining each.

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: 'Searches bookable accommodation in a destination for given dates and returns a ranked list of stays' with a detailed list of output fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming departi_search_transport and departi_search_experiences as alternatives for other needs.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user needs a place to stay' and directly contrasts with sibling tools: 'for getting there use departi_search_transport, for things to do use departi_search_experiences.' This gives clear context and exclusions.

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