search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant context: queries external APIs in real time, returns price-ranked results grouped by SIPP/category, may include affiliate links, and explicitly states what it does not do (book, modify, charge, store). No contradiction.

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?

The description is three sentences, efficient, and front-loaded with the main action. It could be slightly more terse (first sentence is long), but overall earns its place with 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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, real-time external API, output schema exists), the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and explicitly states limitations. It does not need to detail return values due to output schema presence.

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 each parameter has detailed descriptions (e.g., age surcharge, currency defaults). The description only summarizes parameters without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool searches live rental-car offers, specifies key parameters (location, dates, optional fields), and distinguishes it from other travel searches (flights, hotels). Verb 'searches' and resource 'live rental-car offers' are specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user wants to compare available rental cars... Do not use it for flights, hotels... unless the user has car-rental intent.' This clearly defines when to use and when not to, despite no sibling tools.

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