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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the closing 'Lecture seule' adds little. What does add value is the disclosure that emails and phone numbers are never returned and that agents should redirect to `url`, plus which sections (horaires Google, atouts vérifiés, bloc reservation) may or may not be present.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and content list well, but the French half is a near-verbatim translation of the English half, effectively doubling length. The `reservation` sub-source list is informative but the duplication costs density.

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?

With no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields and the note about absent data (hours 'quand ils sont connus') is what lets an agent plan around gaps. Only the pagination/large-payload and error behavior when neither id nor slug is supplied go unmentioned.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description's parameter summary (id numeric or slug as the tail of /xp/{slug}, lang fr|en) largely restates what the schema already documents. Marginal added meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — retrieving full details of a single activity — and enumerates the payload (description, prices, hours, booking). It explicitly ties itself to the output of mesloisirs_search_experiences, which distinguishes it from the search and destination siblings.

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?

Makes clear this is the second step after a search, since the id comes 'des résultats de recherche'. It does not state exclusions against mesloisirs_get_destination or mesloisirs_list_activities, but the singular-activity scope is unambiguous.

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