Travel guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: editorial text may contain stale prices/rules and search tools should be used for live data, plus the per-service identifier format requirements.

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 tight paragraphs with no waste; the purpose leads, the two operating modes follow, and the freshness caveat is placed last. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the two invocation modes, identifier formats, and the staleness caveat. It is essentially complete, though it does not state what happens with no parameters at all (all params are optional).

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the per-field schema does not: which combination of service/origin/destination constitutes a route guide versus a magazine lookup, and that hotel routes use destination-only slugs. That mode grouping is real added value.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns MrBilit's guide content (summary, FAQ, article) for a route or city plus matching magazine posts. That is concrete and distinguishable from the sibling search tools, though it never names a sibling directly to sharpen 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?

It splits usage into two explicit modes — 'Route guide: service + origin + destination' and 'Magazine: query' — and redirects to search tools for live prices. This gives clear context, but there are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives beyond the price caveat.

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