vt_search_attractions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries less burden. The description adds value by mentioning that product codes are included in the results, which is a key behavioral trait not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or any potential 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?

The description is only two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second gives a helpful prerequisite. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description adequately covers the input requirements and general output (attractions with product codes). Missing details about output structure or pagination are partially compensated by the schema descriptions. For its complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already explains their meanings. The description provides no additional parameter details beyond stating that destination_id comes from vt_list_destinations, which is already in the schema description. Therefore, the description adds minimal value over 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists attractions for a destination, specifying that it includes product codes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vt_search_products (which likely searches products by other criteria) and vt_get_attraction (which retrieves a single attraction).

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 explicitly instructs to use vt_list_destinations to find destination ids, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as vt_search_products or vt_get_attraction, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's purpose.

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