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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context that prices include tax and service charge and that there are exactly three courses, which go beyond the schema. However, it does not describe output structure or other runtime behavior, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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 one short sentence with no filler, conveying the core content and an extra detail about tax/service. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it slightly overlaps with the title. It earns its place by adding specificity about per-person pricing and inclusions.

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 read-only, one-parameter list tool, the description adequately explains what the agent will receive: courses, per-person price, inclusions, and tax/service. It does not explicitly mention output format or language behavior, but those are covered by the input schema. Since there is no output schema, the description serves most of the expectation-setting role and is nearly complete.

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 schema fully documents the single lang parameter with enum values and default, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance about language selection or result formatting. With 100% schema coverage, the lack of additional parameter details is acceptable.

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 identifies the resource: the three courses with per-person price and inclusions. It is distinct in subject from siblings like get_booking_link, though it does not explicitly contrast itself. The lack of an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns' is mitigated by the tool name and title.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings get_booking_link or recommend_course. It implies that it is the source for course and pricing information, but it does not state exclusions or direct the agent to alternatives. This leaves selection logic entirely to inference.

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