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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description isn't needed for the safety profile. It adds genuine behavioral value beyond them: localization rules ('proper nouns — do not translate') and strict price handling ('never convert or estimate; show the currency as given'). It says nothing about auth or rate limits, but those aren't relevant to a read-only render.

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?

Purpose and trigger conditions are front-loaded, and the localization/pricing directives are each a single tight sentence. Slightly long overall, but every sentence carries a distinct instruction, so little is wasted.

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 usefully enumerates the returned card contents (gallery, rating, hours, pricing, cancellation policy, book button) and states the key formatting constraints. The main remaining gap is sibling routing against 'get_experience'.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds that the id comes 'from a venue's experiences', which is marginal, and says nothing extra about the optional date or locale fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Show one DayPass experience as an interactive detail card') and enumerates what the card contains. However, it never differentiates from the near-duplicate sibling 'get_experience', so an agent must infer the render-vs-fetch distinction on its own.

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 clear trigger context with concrete example utterances ('details for Fairmont', 'tell me more about the second one'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, leaving the overlap with 'get_experience' and 'render_results' unaddressed.

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