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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, open-world call, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value with the caveat that titles come back in French and must be translated, and it previews the returned fields (ids, starting prices, durations, page links) despite no output schema existing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, then supporting detail. Three dense sentences with no filler, though the destination/tour enumerations are slightly list-heavy for the space they occupy.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of summarizing the return payload and flagging the French-titles translation need. Missing only pagination/ordering behavior for a tool with a limit cap, which is a minor gap given the limit param's schema doc.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates destination coverage and tour types that map to the query/destination params, but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail (e.g. interaction of private_only with shared-only, or how max_price_thb applies) beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('our tours') with enumerated tour types (island hopping, Maya Bay, private boats, snorkeling, diving, boat parties, cultural day trips), which cleanly separates it from search_hotels, search_flights and search_transfers. The destination coverage list further scopes the tool's remit.

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?

Usage context is implied by the destination and tour-type lists, so an agent can infer this is the discovery tool for activities. However, it never names alternatives such as get_experience_details or check_availability/book_experience, so the handoff from search to detail/booking is left to inference.

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