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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It goes beyond annotations by disclosing ranking behavior ('Ranked by relevance to query when given, otherwise by popularity') and the presence of a tracked 'book' link. This gives the agent useful behavioral context not present in structured metadata.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds read-only status, output highlights, and ranking logic in a compact and scannable way.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, complete parameter descriptions in the input schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers all essential behavior an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly. Nothing critical is missing.

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 fully documents parameters like city, limit, query, country, and food_only. The description adds value by clarifying how query affects result ranking and by summarizing the returned item fields, which helps an agent anticipate how parameters shape the response.

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: bookable experiences like food tours, cooking classes, tastings, and tickets for a city. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as stays, car_hire, and search_places by focusing on bookable activities rather than lodgings, vehicles, or general places.

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 clear context about what the tool is for—bookable experiences in a city—and how results are ranked depending on the query parameter. However, it does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool or name an alternative, so the selection guidance is implied rather than direct.

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