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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds context about returning a 'url' field and searching by 'compact public fields', but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination, ordering, or filtering limits. This is adequate but not enriching beyond what annotations provide.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a key detail about the result structure. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description adequately covers the basic functionality but omits important contextual details such as what 'compact public fields' are, whether full-text search is supported, or how results are ordered. With an output schema present, return values are presumably documented, but the description could be more complete by specifying search behavior.

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 input schema has 50% description coverage (only 'query' has a description). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of either parameter beyond the schema. For example, 'maxResults' lacks any description in both schema and description. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding semantic context.

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 identifies the action ('search') and the target resource ('published hut-to-hut tours'). It specifies that results include a URL to the canonical detail page, adding clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings ('fetch' and 'recommend_tours'), so it misses the top score.

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 description implies the tool is used for searching tours but provides no guidance on when to use it over alternatives like 'fetch' or 'recommend_tours'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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