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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing the payload contents and the handoff to place_url for the full page. It doesn't address auth, rate limits, or error behavior, so it's not exhaustive.

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-loads the purpose, then routes alternatives in priority order, ending with an explicit exclusion. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction; there is no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out here. For a single-handle read tool with rich annotations, the description supplies the payload gist, the prerequisite tool, and the sibling routing — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the parameter already documents itself as a 'Sorted sitemap handle such as paris, hanoi, or tokyo' with examples. The description's 'Use a sitemap handle such as hanoi, paris, or tokyo' largely repeats that, adding no format or validation nuance beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Get Sorted on-the-ground facts for one destination handle') and then enumerates exactly what comes back (brief, safety, currency, phone code, eSIM notes, taxi apps). It clearly separates itself from destinations.weather and destinations.resolve by name, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

Explicit routing: use destinations.resolve first if you only have a city/country/airport name, use destinations.weather for weather/climate/best-time, and a hard exclusion ('Do not use this for bookings'). Both the when and the when-not are stated, with named alternatives.

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