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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: results are paginated, ordered by relevance, and 'not influenced by paid placement'. It also discloses the return field structure, which is valuable since there is no output 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?

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: what it searches, result contents, ordering policy, and slug linkage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema), the description covers search criteria, pagination, result fields, ordering, and the relationship to get_activity_details. It provides a complete mental model for selecting and invoking the tool without relying on an output schema.

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 100%, so parameters are fully described. The description adds value by grouping parameters into a coherent query model (keyword, location via city/state or radius, age, date range, category), clarifying that city/state and latitude/longitude are alternative location modes. This conceptual framing goes beyond individual schema descriptions.

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: 'Searches children's enrichment activities (camps, classes, after-school programs) in the United States' with specific filter criteria. It differentiates from siblings by explaining that the slug returned is 'the identifier accepted by get_activity_details', signaling a search-to-detail relationship.

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 implies usage context through its search criteria and result fields, making clear this is the tool for discovering activities. It hints at the alternative get_activity_details by mentioning the slug relationship, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide direct alternative guidance.

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