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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a visitId and machine instructions, but an output schema exists, making this largely duplicative; it does not address idempotency or rate limits.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the only input detail. No wasted words.

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 read-only discovery tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is adequate on purpose and input optionality. It leaves gaps around the meaning of 'source' and explicit routing versus sibling tools like resort_check_in.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only restates that 'source' is an optional string and that there is no required input—both already in the schema—without explaining what 'source' represents, its format, or the 64-character limit.

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 ('Discover') and resource ('Agent Resort'), and lists returned artifacts: visitId, source, machine instructions, and next steps for check-in. It implies the onboarding role relative to resort_check_in but does not explicitly name or contrast any 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'next steps for check-in' implies this is an onboarding step before resort_check_in, but the agent must infer that, and no alternatives are named.

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