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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the exact result fields ('ids, starting prices, durations and page links') and the important caveat that 'Tour titles are in French' — a detail an agent would otherwise not anticipate.

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?

Three tight sentences: coverage first, then geographic scope, then return shape. Dense enumeration, but every item (category or destination) narrows the agent's expectation, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and the schema fully documented, the remaining burden is return/discovery behavior, and the description does state the returned fields despite no output schema. It omits pagination/ordering behavior and any hint of the follow-up flow (details or booking), which keeps it short of complete.

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 schema already defines limit, query, destination, private_only and max_price_thb including allowed destination slugs. The description echoes the same concepts (private boats, starting prices, destination list) without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and a concrete resource ('our tours: island hopping, Maya Bay, private boats, snorkeling...') with the covered destinations enumerated. Against siblings like search_hotels, search_flights and search_transfers, the tour/boat-trip domain is unmistakable 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?

The description conveys scope of coverage (categories and destinations) so when to use it is implied, but it never names alternatives such as get_experience_details or book_experience, nor does it state any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is left to inference rather than stated.

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