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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds which spaces are in scope (own finished spaces + public site spaces) and that matching is by title words, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or behavior when query is omitted.

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 tight clauses with no filler: the result scope is front-loaded, followed by the search mechanism. The opening is a sentence fragment, but it costs nothing in clarity or length.

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 single-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what kind of items come back (finished and public spaces) and how to search. It stops short of describing ordering, result count, or the shape of each returned record, which would matter since no output schema exists.

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% (query is a bare string), so the description must carry the parameter's meaning — and it does, clarifying that search matches 'words in the title'. It leaves open whether the parameter is optional and what an empty query returns, but it adds genuine semantic value over the schema.

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 resource (spaces a tour or scavenger hunt can be built on) and enumerates the corpus it draws from: the person's own finished spaces plus the site's public spaces (museums, temples, tombs, gardens). This is clearly distinct from siblings like create_space, list_tours, or space_status, though it never names an alternative for contrast.

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 implied by the phrase 'spaces a guided tour or scavenger hunt can be built on', suggesting this is a discovery step before create_tour/save_tour. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions (e.g., does it cover spaces already used in a tour?), and no comparison to sibling lookups such as search_models.

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