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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully describe the result scope (own finished spaces plus public museums/temples/tombs/gardens), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, authentication requirements, or what happens with an empty query.

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?

Compact: one scope-defining clause followed by a colon-enumerated result set, then a short usage fragment. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the trailing fragment is slightly clipped.

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-optional-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the result domain but leaves gaps on optionality, empty-query behavior, and result shape that an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 0% — the only parameter is typed as a bare string with no description. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the query matches against title words, but it doesn't say whether the parameter is optional or what an omitted query returns.

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 action and resource scope: spaces eligible to host a guided tour or scavenger hunt, split into the user's finished spaces and the site's public spaces. An agent understands the domain of results, though it never names a sibling tool (e.g. get_tour, search_models) to distinguish itself.

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?

"Search by words in the title" implies the query usage but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no alternative named for browsing versus searching, and no indication of whether the tool is a prerequisite step for create_tour.

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