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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: results show availability only, and a seat is occupied only after carrier confirmation, preventing agents from assuming the search reserves anything.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct job: what the tool finds, when to use it, and the booking caveat. Nothing is padded and the main verb and resource appear first.

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?

Together with the fully documented schema and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient for correct invocation: it covers resource, scope, trigger phrases, returned data, and the no-reservation caveat. No output schema exists, but the description already sketches the result fields.

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?

Input schema describes all 4 parameters with formats and examples, so schema coverage is 100%; the description adds no new parameter-level detail. It does summarize what the search returns, which indirectly clarifies the meaning of 'place' and date window, but the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with a specific action ('Найти свободные места') and identifies the exact resource: Kamchatka carrier trips (jeeps, vans, minibuses) from the TourHab showcase. It also lists returned data fields, making the purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling search tools.

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?

It explicitly lists user intents that should trigger this tool ('как доехать', 'есть ли трансфер', 'заброска', 'попутный джип'). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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