vt_search_freetext

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns multiple types (products, attractions, destinations) and is free-text, which is useful but not substantial beyond the 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and example. Every word adds value. No superfluous 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?

For a search tool with extensive schema documentation, the description provides adequate high-level context. It could mention search_types or pagination, but the schema fills those gaps. Slightly incomplete for a full understanding without reading the schema.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all 15 parameters in detail. The tool description does not add further meaning to any parameter, meeting the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource (Viator products, attractions, destinations) with a concrete example 'colosseum underground tour'. It distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as 'fastest way to find things when you don't have a destination id yet'.

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 provides clear context: 'when you don't have a destination id yet', implying it's the go-to for open-ended searches. It doesn't explicitly list sibling tools or when NOT to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide the agent.

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