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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), yet the description adds real behavioral context: the output is an interactive card with a booking CTA, and rendering-fidelity rules (do not translate proper nouns, never convert or estimate prices). It lacks any note on failure modes when the id is unknown, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the display action and its payload, followed by the sibling routing and constraints in three dense sentences with no filler. The translation/pricing rules are slightly tangential to tool selection but are short and operationally relevant to a rendering tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value — and it does so thoroughly (card sections plus the Book on DayPass button). Combined with annotations, sibling routing, and id provenance, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented (id, date with relative-term examples, locale scope). The description adds only the provenance of `id` ('from a venue's experiences'), a modest increment over the schema, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb (DISPLAY) plus resource (one experience as an interactive detail card), and it enumerates exactly what the card contains (gallery, rating, hours, amenities, pricing, policy, book button). It also names the sibling get_experience and states how the two differ, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use this to SHOW a chosen experience; use get_experience when you only need the data.' It also states the precondition that the id comes from a venue's `experiences`, which prevents calling it with an arbitrary or invented id.

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