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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: output-data conventions (proper nouns must not be translated, prices are exact and must not be converted or estimated, currency shown as given). It doesn't cover pagination or failure modes, but as a read tool it goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, then usage routing, then output conventions. No filler; the only slight dilution is the density of constraints in the final sentence, but each constraint 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?

Covers purpose, sibling routing, and display/formatting conventions for a read-only detail tool with no output schema. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly; only minor details like error behavior for an invalid id are unaddressed, which is acceptable for this scope.

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%, so each parameter is already documented, including format hints for date and the localization-only purpose of locale. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema; per the baseline rule, 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get full details for one DayPass experience by id') and enumerates the detail categories returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling render_experience, which is the display-oriented counterpart.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you need the details to answer a question') and names the alternative and its condition ('to show the venue to the user, use render_experience'). This is the clearest form of routing guidance.

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