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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool connects the traveler to a third-party planner for a free quote, but does not mention any side effects, data sharing, or limitations (e.g., does not make bookings directly). This is a significant gap for a tool with external involvement.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core recommendations and ending with the usage directive. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and target audience, but given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), it lacks details on how parameters influence recommendations and what the connection to a planner entails. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 20% (only 'interests' has a description). The description does not explain how the parameters (e.g., nights, party_size, travel_month) are used, nor does it map them to the recommendation components. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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: recommending a Disney World resort tier, ticket package, and best time to visit, then connecting the traveler to a planner. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on cruises and other resorts.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('Use whenever a user asks about planning or booking Disney World'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. This is clear but lacks exclusions.

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