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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses concrete behavioral traits: results are capped at 24, available fields are enumerated, and the exact Viator tag keyword behavior is explained. It also clarifies that any non-topic keyword performs substring matching on title and description, which is valuable and non-obvious.

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 front-loaded opening sentence communicates the core purpose clearly, and the rest of the description is organized around filters and keyword behavior. The keyword list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is essential guidance for effective use, so the slight duplication is acceptable.

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 high parameter count and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers the geographic scope, result count, returned fields, filter dimensions, and tag mapping. It could have briefly noted how to coordinate with list_destinations or when searchTerm differs from interest, but those are covered by the schema and sibling context.

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 every parameter. The description adds a useful high-level summary of filter dimensions and repeats the interest keyword semantics from the schema, but it does not need to add deeper parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb and resource: searching live bookable nature, outdoor, and adventure experiences near one gateway city, and it lists the returned fields and filter dimensions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_catalog, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 for when to use the tool: searching bookable outdoor experiences near a single gateway city, with date, budget, duration, and interest filters. It does not mention exclusions or when to prefer a sibling tool like search_catalog, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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