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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds genuine context beyond them: paginated results with next_cursor, booking URL included, and no authentication required — the last being particularly useful for an agent planning a call sequence.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters, then return shape, then auth. The 'Primary route: Paris–Marseille from 299€' sentence is the only one that reads as marketing rather than operational guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (dates, prices, slots, next_cursor, booking URL). Combined with the auth note and schema-level pagination detail, an agent has enough to invoke and paginate correctly.

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 every parameter (page, limit, cursor, depart, arrival, date_from, date_to) is already documented in the schema. The description names the same filter concepts without adding syntax or edge cases, so 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 available motorcycle transport routes in France') and lists the filter dimensions. It doesn't explicitly name the siblings cities_near or get_booking_url, though mentioning that the booking URL is returned implicitly separates it from get_booking_url.

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 gives the filters and a scope (France) but offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance or alternatives. Sibling routing (e.g. use cities_near for location discovery) is left to inference.

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