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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the UI shape (card rail + map), that no separate search call is needed, that names are proper nouns not to be translated, and that prices must be shown exactly as given. It stops short of describing pagination or result-count behavior, keeping it at a 4.

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 output are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage and constraints. The seven-example list is longer than necessary for a definition that already states intent coverage, but each sentence is otherwise load-bearing and no clause is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given that, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: intent coverage, multilingual examples, follow-up handling, sibling relationship, and the presentation constraints on names and prices.

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 eight parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds only an indirect hint that inputs mirror search_experiences; it contributes no syntax, format, or defaulting detail 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Show DayPass experiences for a place') and describes the rendered output (interactive card rail with map, List/Map toggle) with the data fields shown. It also positions itself against search_experiences by stating it takes the same inputs and returns the same data, so an agent can distinguish the two 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 when-to-use coverage: it enumerates intent families (find, browse, compare, plan) and gives multilingual example utterances, including ones that never say 'DayPass' or 'experience'. It also covers follow-up turns that mutate the search (date, type, budget, sort) and names the sibling whose inputs it shadows.

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