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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are locally supplied details only, implying a read-only retrieval rather than a booking operation, but it does not describe result ordering, pagination behavior, or what happens when no filters are supplied.

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 two sentences and front-loads the searchable scope and filters. It is efficient overall, though the phrase 'locally supplied' is repeated in the second sentence without adding new meaning.

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?

This is a six-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain the return shape, default limit, ranking or behavior when no matches are found, leaving important gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description mentions destination, category, maximum price and minimum rating but adds no syntax, defaults or format details beyond what the schema provides, and does not mention query or limit.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search experiences, scoped to Queenstown, Milford Sound, Wanaka and Te Anau, with named filters. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_experience tool.

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 usage by listing filter dimensions, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as get_experience or compare_options. It also omits that all parameters are optional and offers no exclusions or decision rules.

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