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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuinely useful behavioral context: data is read live from sandals.com and reflects the October 2026 renames, which prevents stale-name results. However, it never states this is a read-only operation, whether results are ranked/paginated, or what a result entry contains (name, booking URL).

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 short sentences: purpose first, then the data-freshness caveat. Nothing is wasted and no sentence merely restates the tool name.

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 zero-required-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose and data provenance but leaves the five filters and the shape of results undocumented. An agent cannot tell what it gets back or how best_for tokens map to resorts.

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 only 40% (max_results and overwater_only are undocumented, budget_tier has an enum but no prose) and the description says nothing about any of the five parameters. It neither clarifies how best_for tags interact with destination/budget_tier nor explains whether max_results has a default or cap.

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 Sandals Resorts') and adds a scope qualifier ('couples, adults-only') plus the note that names/URLs come live from sandals.com. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_beaches_resorts via brand, though it never names the sibling.

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?

'Use when the user wants a Sandals resort' gives a clear selection condition, and the adults-only/couples framing helps route couples-honeymoon queries here rather than to a generic resort tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., Beaches is family-friendly).

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