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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds extra behavioral context by specifying what fields will be returned (long description, included, location, price in CLP, operator, canonical URL), giving the agent a clear picture of the response shape.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the action ('Get full detail') and efficiently lists the response contents. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of documenting the expected return value by listing the key fields. Combined with the strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The only parameter 'slug' is already fully described in the schema as 'Experience slug' (100% schema coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage detail for this parameter, so it does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 ('Get'), resource ('Tuki experience'), and enumerates the exact contents (long description, included, location, price, operator, canonical URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling detail-getter tools like get_accommodation_detail or get_event_detail.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and resource type—if you need full detail for an experience, use this tool—but there is no explicit guidance on when to avoid it or which alternative to prefer (e.g., search_experiences for summaries). The description does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

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