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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: it returns availability, blocked dates, dated prices, and automatically proposes next open dates on failure. It does not mention latency, caching, or how stale 'live' data can be, so it falls short of the top mark.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the core capability and its sub-details front-loaded before the usage imperative. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden itself, and it does: availability, seat counts, blocked dates, dated prices, and fallback dates. For a read-only query tool whose annotations already declare the safety profile, nothing essential for correct invocation 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by tying party composition and date to pricing ('dated prices', 'exact party price', 'seats left') and by revealing a 48h notice rule that constrains which dates are valid — meaningful added context the schema does not state.

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 and resource — live availability plus exact party price for one tour on one date — and enumerates the concrete outputs (seats left, blocked dates, 48h notice rule, dated prices). Combined with the closing instruction to call it before quoting or booking, an agent can distinguish it from book_experience and get_experience_details without opening any schema.

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 imperative trigger: 'Always call it before quoting a total or booking,' which is strong when-to-use guidance. It also describes the fallback path when a date fails, but it never names the sibling tools it should precede or states when it is unnecessary (e.g., exploratory browsing).

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