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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, open-world profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: it renders an interactive map/card rail rather than returning raw data, and it imposes display constraints (proper nouns untranslated, prices shown exactly as given, never converted). It doesn't cover edge cases like empty result sets, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the routing rule; the remaining sentences carry non-obvious display constraints rather than filler. Slightly prose-heavy but no sentence 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the routing decision, input parity with the sibling, and rendering/formatting constraints. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around empty results or fallback behavior.

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% and every parameter is documented inline (city optional, date formats, sort options, type filter, locale purpose, required country), so the schema carries the weight. The description only summarizes inputs as "the same inputs as search_experiences (city + country, optional filters)" without adding format or syntax meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("DISPLAY DayPass search results") and names the concrete output form (card rail + map with List/Map toggle), which no other sibling produces. It also explicitly contrasts itself with search_experiences, so an agent can disambiguate 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use ("when the user wants to SEE/browse experiences") and a named alternative with its own condition ("use search_experiences instead when you only need the data to reason over"). This is a clean presentational-vs-data routing rule.

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