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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond those hints: it returns 'interactive SplashScout cards plus a text summary' and ranks results by age-group fit. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it finds, what it returns, and when to use it. The core function is front-loaded before output format and examples. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 all 5 parameters documented in the schema (100% coverage), rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description only needs to carry purpose and trigger conditions — which it does. The only notable gap is explicit differentiation from compare_hotels, but that overlaps with usage guidance and does not hamper correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by showing how natural-language prompts map to parameter combinations — 'Tenerife' maps to destination, 'campsites' to type, 'big slides' to features, 'toddler' to ages. It doesn't add syntax details, but the examples genuinely help an agent decide how to fill parameters.

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 ('Find'), a concrete resource ('hotels & campsites'), and precise scoping ('kid-friendly ... with pools, slides and splash parks, scored for toddlers, kids and teens'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings compare_hotels, get_hotel, and get_travel_guide — it searches and ranks family properties rather than comparing, fetching a single property, or providing general travel guidance.

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 closes with two concrete example prompts ('best family hotel in Tenerife for a toddler', 'campsites in France with big slides') that show exactly which queries should trigger this tool. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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