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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried elsewhere. The description adds output composition but never explains the destructive or non-idempotent behavior—an agent is not told whether repeated calls create duplicate pages or what side effects occur.

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, dense and front-loaded: capability and outputs first, suitability second. No filler or restated field names.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned. However, for a tool annotated destructive and non-idempotent, it omits side-effect, repeat-call and prerequisite information, and leaves adults/children/date parameters unexplained.

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 only 67%, with adults and children undocumented, yet the description says nothing about party size, start/end dates or language. It only echoes 'stops in travel order', which the destinations schema field already states.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Build a multi-stop Thailand itinerary') and states exactly what is returned: a shareable page and PDF with day-by-day plan, map, transport prices, hotels and tours. This is clearly distinguishable from the search_*/book_* siblings.

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 closing sentence ('Suited to trips of several days or several places') gives implied usage context for when this itinerary builder fits. It does not name alternatives (e.g., search_hotels or search_experiences for simpler lookups) or state when not to use it.

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