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 little behavioral detail beyond confirming it searches multiple entity types and is fast, but it doesn't describe pagination defaults, result limits, or the fact that search semantics are free-text rather than exact-match. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, includes a helpful example, and immediately adds the routing condition ('when you don't have a destination id yet'). Every word earns its place.

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's moderate complexity and the very rich input-schema descriptions that cover every parameter, the concise description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It does not describe return shape, but the schema's 'view' parameter already explains compact vs. full response behavior, so this is not a significant gap.

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 baseline applies: all 15 parameters have descriptive text, enums, defaults, and constraints in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema is thorough, the description does not need to compensate. This is a standard case where the structured schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('search'), a clear resource scope ('Viator products, attractions, and destinations'), and gives a concrete example query. It also distinguishes this tool from structured searches by emphasizing free-text and the 'don't have a destination id yet' use case, which separates it from sibling tools like vt_search_products and vt_search_attractions.

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 gives clear guidance: use this tool for free-text discovery when you lack a destination id. It implies that structured search tools are the alternative once an id is known, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings or state when not to use this tool. The condition is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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