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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context that the suggestion goes to human review and never enters the resort index, clarifying the write's effect. It does not cover auth or rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key behavioral constraint. No wasted words.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description does not help an agent provide correct inputs (e.g., country format, lat/lon conventions, notes purpose). While annotations cover safety, the parameter gap is significant.

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 0% for 6 parameters (4 required). The description adds no information about parameters, leaving formats and meaning entirely to the schema's type and constraint definitions, which only partly compensate.

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 states a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('missing resort') and adds the qualifier 'for human review'. It clearly distinguishes this from direct addition, though it does not name a sibling alternative.

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 is implied: use when a resort is missing from the index, and the tool will not add it directly. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternative tools for adding resorts.

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