Popular destinations and collections

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is low. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond them: when `collection` is supplied the result set changes to also include the cities that collection covers, expressed as city slugs. It does not discuss limits or pagination, but with an output schema present that is not required.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the concrete examples, followed by the routing rule and the parameter behavior. No filler or repetition; every sentence carries a distinct instruction.

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 not be spelled out, and the description covers the zero-required/one-optional parameter surface plus the cross-tool handoff to ot_search_rooms. The only small gap is what the tool returns when `collection` is omitted, which is left to 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns a bump: it explains that `collection` is a code shared with ot_search_rooms and demonstrates the accepted values ('beach', 'jungle', 'lastsecond'), which is meaning beyond the raw slug pattern. It also clarifies the optional param's effect on the response.

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?

Names the specific resource (popular cities and themed collection landing pages) and illustrates it with concrete examples ('discounted', 'jungle villas', 'villas with pool'). It is distinguishable from list-style siblings but never uses an explicit verb like 'list', leaving the action slightly implied by the noun phrase.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when the user has no destination yet') and a second, distinct trigger (to obtain collection codes for the ot_search_rooms `collection` parameter), naming the sibling that consumes the output. Nothing is left to inference about when to reach for this tool.

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