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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing that prices are indicative and that no live availability, reservation or guarantee is offered. That is a data-freshness and capability caveat the agent could not derive from the annotations or schema.

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, zero filler, with the scope of the resource front-loaded and the limitations following immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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, so the description carries some burden for return-shape expectations; it partially meets this by noting prices are indicative and that no live availability exists. However, it says nothing about what a result contains, how 'q' filters, or result limits, leaving the tool minimally but not fully specified.

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 0% and neither parameter is named in the description. The phrase 'accommodation and restaurant' loosely hints at the HOMESTAY/RESTAURANT enum, but the free-text 'q' parameter is never explained, so the description does not compensate for the total lack of parameter documentation.

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 specific verb ('Find') and a concrete resource ('approved Hong Kong accommodation and restaurant directories'), so the agent knows it is a lookup over curated listings rather than a mutation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_offer or create_offer, and the shift from 'offers' in the name to 'directories' in the text adds mild ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should search when it lacks an offer id, and the 'no live availability, reservation or guarantee' clause hints at what the tool must not be used for. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, exclusions, or comparison against get_offer/search_tasks.

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