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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful return-shape context: structured itineraries appear only when the provider supplies them, locations are importance-ordered rather than itinerary order, and pricing is localized. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or pagination, keeping it below a 5.

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 markdown structure is front-loaded with an overview and scannable sections. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary, but each section contributes useful context and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so across tour profile, media, practical info, itineraries, and pricing. It also covers usage and quick-start parameter guidance. Missing only edge-case or error behavior for a full 5.

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 input schema has zero properties, so the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description usefully adds that the tour id goes in the URL path and that language and currency are required query parameters, though it provides no format constraints for those values.

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 and resource: retrieve full details for a specific tour. It enumerates the returned content (description, media, inclusions, pricing context, itineraries) and distinguishes the tool from search/availability siblings by framing it as the detail view before date selection.

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 'When to Use' section gives clear scenarios: product pages, comparison, content enrichment. It does not explicitly name when to avoid it or point to alternatives such as searchExperienceTours or getExperienceTourAvailability, but the intended context is well communicated.

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