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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the exact source domain and a full inventory of returned fields (title, category, location, price, duration, booking URL, etc.). No contradiction with 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 English and Norwegian sentences are near-duplicates, adding redundant length without new information. The returned-fields list and the UUID source guidance are useful, but the bilingual repetition could be trimmed to save tokens.

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 description compensates by enumerating all returned fields, which is essential for an agent to know what to expect. For a single-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, nothing critical is missing—minor gap is the absence of an explicit 'use when you have a UUID' trigger.

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% with format, pattern, and an example in the description. The description adds the critical workflow detail that the id comes from discover_experiences output, which is semantic value the schema alone does not convey.

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 (Fetch), a precise resource (complete details for a single experience), and the source domain (opplevagent.no), with a brief Norwegian mirror for locality. It is clearly distinct from the sibling list/discovery tools, so an agent can tell this is the detail-retrieval counterpart to discover_experiences.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the required UUID ('Obtain the UUID from discover_experiences results'), establishing the correct workflow. It does not spell out when NOT to use it versus siblings, but the single-id resource makes the use case self-evident.

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