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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the result is 'One rich guide record fusing live catalogue data with theatre expertise', signalling a single aggregated record rather than a list. That is genuine added context, but nothing about rate limits, auth, or freshness beyond the annotation profile.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the trigger first, then the nature of the record. 'Fusing live catalogue data with theatre expertise' is slightly promotional but conveys that the record mixes live and editorial data. No filler beyond that.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on triggering and content scope. Combined with 100% schema coverage and rich annotations, little is missing. A note on how the slug/product_id choice affects results would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: slug, city_slug, and product_id are all documented with their dependency (slug requires city_slug). The description only restates 'Accepts slug or product_id', which the schema already makes clear. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('show guide') and enumerates the payload: duration, age guidance, venue/address, curtain times, dark days, suitability, and this week's performances. That is far more specific than a generic 'get details' tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_experience_details, so it stops short of a 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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use this when the user asks about a specific show.' That is actionable context. However, it names no alternative (e.g. search_experiences vs get_experience_details) and states no exclusion, so it is context without routing.

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