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 genuine context beyond them by signaling that this returns suggestion records (not full property data) and listing the entity categories, which helps the agent understand the lightness of the response.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope and return content, the second routes to alternatives. Front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. Purpose, entity coverage, and sibling routing are all present, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents term, locale, and currency, including the 100-byte cap and defaults. The description only mentions `term` as free text, adding no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') plus a precise resource ('Expedia destination/property typeahead suggestion records') and enumerates the entity types returned (cities, airports, neighborhoods, hotels). It clearly reads as a lightweight typeahead, distinguishable from expedia_properties_search without opening any schema.

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 names two alternatives with their purposes: expedia_properties_search 'to find stays' and expedia_properties_filters 'to inspect search facets', which routes the agent well. It stops short of an explicit 'use this only when you need to resolve free text into a location' statement, but the context is unambiguous.

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