search_rooms

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses caching behavior, fallback process, location requirement, and output fields. It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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 concise with two paragraphs plus an example. It is well-structured: purpose first, then behavior, output fields, and example. Every sentence adds value.

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 caching logic and 3 parameters, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter implications, and output. The output schema exists, so return values need not be elaborated. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or result limits.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the substring matching, case-insensitivity, and the implication of omitting location. It provides an example that reinforces parameter usage.

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 verb 'Find rooms by name' and specifies the resource (rooms) and output (numeric IDs). It differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning that the results are needed by find_available_rooms and book_room.

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 explains when to use the cache vs live fallback, and that location is required in fallback mode. It provides context on cache behavior but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like discover_rooms or find_available_rooms.

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