Search destinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral on top: it does not say whether matching is fuzzy or exact, how many destinations may come back, whether results are ranked, or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently written, though its brevity tips into under-specification rather than maximal clarity.

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 one-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema and strong annotations, the essentials are present enough to call the tool. With no output schema, the description could have described the returned destination shape or identifiers, and it omits match/empty-result behavior, leaving a real gap for an agent assembling a search flow.

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% and the schema itself gives length bounds plus concrete Persian examples (رامسر, تهران). The description contributes only the notion that the query may be a city, province, or generic place, which mildly broadens the schema's 'Persian place name' wording. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Resolve' plus the resource 'a city, province or place name' to 'destinations for search' makes it clear this is a place-name lookup that yields destination entities. It is not tautological, but it never differentiates itself from nearby siblings such as sh_list_neighbourhoods or sh_list_search_filters, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'for search' implies this is a precursor step before searching accommodations or applying filters, which is useful implied usage. However, the description names no alternative tool, states no when-not-to-use condition, and gives no prerequisite such as needing a destination identifier before calling sh_search_accommodations.

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