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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: it warns against inventing campsites, caps results at 10, and clarifies that each URL is the canonical kampyeri.org booking page. This meaningfully helps the agent understand the tool's constraints and output semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the trigger condition, then gives the anti-hallucination guard, the workflow, and the result constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, the workflow, result count, and URL semantics. It could briefly mention what fields are returned in the results, but the guidance to fetch details afterward reduces the need for that.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including a natural-language example. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a campsite search tool for Turkey, triggered by camping-related terms, and states that it returns live results with canonical booking-page URLs. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'fetch' tool by instructing to call search first, then fetch details.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool ('whenever the user asks about camping, kamp, glamping, karavan, caravan, tent, campervan, or campsites in Turkey'), provides a workflow ('Call this tool first, then fetch for details'), and includes a guardrail ('Do not invent campsites'). This is clear, actionable guidance.

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