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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and notably openWorldHint=false (closed corpus of resorts/regions), so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the return shape (snippets with citations), but does not disclose result limits, pagination, or that the corpus is the built-in resort/region dataset rather than open web.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return shape immediately after. Nothing in the text is redundant.

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, fully annotated read-only search, the description covers purpose plus return contents (which matters because no output schema exists). The remaining gap is tool selection against search_resorts and any result-count/paging behavior.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents "query" as "Search query". The description adds nothing about query syntax, matching behavior, or the implications of "OpenAI-compatible" formatting, 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?

The description gives a concrete verb and resource ("search over resorts and regions") plus the response shape (id, title, url, text snippets with citations), so an agent knows what it returns. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_resorts, which overlaps heavily on the "search resorts" surface. Clear purpose, weak sibling disambiguation.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative despite several overlapping siblings (search_resorts, list_regions, fetch). "OpenAI-compatible" hints at an integration context but gives the agent no routing rule for choosing this over search_resorts.

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