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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as read-only (searching and returning results) but doesn't explicitly state it has no side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It adds constraints (only published homes, rating >=4.3) but lacks disclosure of data freshness or error behavior.

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: first defines purpose, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description covers core functionality well (region, rating filter, use case). It lacks explicit info on return structure or pagination, but maxResults is in schema. Slight gaps in completeness, but adequate for a search tool.

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%, but the description adds value by providing example queries ('mountain view Cherrapunji') and listing specific state slugs, which go beyond schema descriptions. It reinforces defaults (minRating 4.3) and usage patterns.

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 searches a curated catalog of vacation homes in a specific region (Northeast India and Himalayas) and filters by Google rating. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_listing for specific listing, start_inquiry for inquiry) by focusing on search and suggestion.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this when a traveler asks about accommodation suggestions in this region' and lists relevant states. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear and actionable.

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