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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only lookup via 'peek' and 'Get', but it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, nor does it mention auth, rate limits, or output edge cases. This is acceptable for a simple lookup but not fully transparent.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and key return details without filler. The '[peek]' prefix is minor but harmless, and every part of the sentence contributes useful context.

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 straightforward read-only availability lookup with fully documented parameters, the description captures the essential context and return content. There is no output schema, but the description's mention of dates, times, and pricing gives enough of a picture for tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with full coverage, including inclusive-date semantics and quantity. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('availability information for a specific experience'), and the content included ('dates, times, and pricing'). This distinguishes it from siblings like peek_experience_details and peek_search_experiences.

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?

The description implies a clear use case: you need availability for a specific experience, so you must already have an ID and date range. It does not explicitly compare against peek_experience_details or other alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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