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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds beyond that by revealing the result is only metadata and that actual content requires a separate fetch call. This is useful behavioral context that the annotations don't provide, so the description earns a strong score.

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 three short sentences: the first states what it does, the second gives the return format and next step, and the third names the alternative. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains zero filler, making it concise and efficient.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description conveys everything needed: the resource scope, result fields, and the follow-up action (fetch). It also handles the decision point with search_chalets. The lack of pagination details is negligible for such a simple returned list.

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?

The schema already describes the single parameter as a natural language query or keywords, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional insight about the parameter itself; it focuses on output and follow-up steps. Per the rule, baseline 3 applies because schema covers the parameter fully.

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 performs full-text search on chalets and guides, and specifies the exact return format (id, title, url). It explicitly differentiates from search_chalets by naming it as the filtered alternative, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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?

It provides direct instructions: use fetch with the id to get content, and prefer search_chalets for filtered queries. This gives explicit when-to-use guidance and names the sibling tool that replaces it for different needs, so the agent knows exactly how to route its request.

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