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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that matching is free-text and city-scoped, with no mention of result volume, pagination, or ranking behavior beyond what the schema implies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, the domain, and the matching inputs with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the key noun (activities search) leads.

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 3-optional-param search tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The only missing element is routing against agoda_activity_detail, which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 100%, so the city/city_id/keyword precedence rules are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or fallback detail beyond 'keyword and/or city', which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (activities), and enumerates the domain as tours, attractions, and experiences. It is unambiguous what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like agoda_activity_detail or booking_attractions_search, so an agent still has to infer routing.

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?

The phrase 'matching a free-text keyword and/or a city' hints at how to query, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to the detail tool for a specific activity. It is closer to a restated capability than to routing guidance.

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