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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (though 'peek' hints at it), what happens if the ID is not found, whether authentication is required, or any error behavior. The description is purely functional and lacks these contextual details.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and target. It is front-loaded with the tool category marker '[peek]' and avoids any redundant wording. Every element earns its place, and there is no 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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but leaves some gaps. It does not describe the returned data structure or handle cases like invalid/missing IDs. Given the simplicity and strong schema coverage, it is minimally viable but could mention expected output or error behavior to be more self-contained.

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 provides 100% coverage: the only parameter ('id') has a clear description ('The ID of the experience to retrieve'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra syntax or formatting is needed for a single string ID.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed information about a specific experience') and the selection criterion ('by ID'). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like peek_search_experiences, which are for broader searches, making it immediately clear this is a singular retrieval operation.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you have a specific experience ID and need detailed information. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the context (search returns lists, this returns one item) is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit 'use this when you have an ID' statement.

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