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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: unpublished records return NOT_FOUND, currency is switched by editing the id rather than a parameter, and a tour record's shape (itinerary, inclusions, exclusions, hotels, departures) plus explicit disclosure of what it lacks.

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 return value, then id format, then currency mechanics, then edge cases. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding, even the compact 'names what it lacks' clause conveys missing-field disclosure.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete: id syntax, currency behavior, record shape and the NOT_FOUND case are all covered. The remaining hole is sibling disambiguation against get_tour and search.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, but the description is where the id grammar actually lives: the <type>:<lang>:<currency>:<key> format and the note that changing the currency segment switches currency. That is genuine meaning beyond the schema's circular 'format as in the tool description' text.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: returns full text, price and site link for a record id. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_tour or search, so an agent must guess which fetch-style tool to reach for.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required id parameter and the stated id format suggest 'call this when you already have a record id.' There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing away from get_tour or search, which overlap heavily with this tool.

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