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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the description. The description adds context: highlights are real, verified places, guides are pre-written, and only a fixed set of neighbourhoods are covered. It also discloses that it returns a not-found message with available options.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, but it is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence adds value, so it is efficient despite being longer than minimal.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return structure. It does so adequately: introduction, highlight places with reasons, and up to three day plans generated by the same planner as plan_day. It could be slightly more detailed about the day plans, but it is largely sufficient.

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?

The single parameter 'neighbourhood' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning by providing example values (Shoreditch, Marylebone, Notting Hill) and explaining that if no match, it returns a list of available neighbourhoods. This significantly compensates for the schema gap.

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 that the tool returns a pre-written guide for a neighbourhood, including an introduction, highlights with reasons, and day plans. It distinguishes itself from general knowledge and sibling tools (plan_day, suggest_swaps) by emphasizing verified, pre-written content.

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 specifies when to use: when the user asks for a guide, overview, or 'the best of' a neighbourhood, with examples like 'show me the Shoreditch guide'. It advises preferring this over general knowledge and notes that it covers a fixed set, returning available neighbourhoods if no match.

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