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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'live' signals real-time (non-cached) pricing, and the field list discloses what the payload actually contains, which is the main behavioral question for a read tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the scope ('Full live sheet of one tour') before the field inventory. The long comma list is information-dense rather than padded, though it reads more like a manifest than prose.

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 must carry the return-value burden — and it does, enumerating every major section of the sheet. What it omits is any note on failure behavior for a bad slug or on whether pricing is currency-localized, which keeps it just under 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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage — the schema already explains the 'destination/slug' id format and the name fallback. The description only reinforces the single-tour scope ('one tour') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

Names a specific resource and scope: the full detail sheet for ONE tour, then enumerates the concrete fields returned (price tiers, child price, dated periods, duration, schedule, meeting point, inclusions, park fee, page link). The 'one tour' framing implicitly separates it from search_experiences, but no sibling is named explicitly, 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the follow-up to search_experiences once a specific tour is chosen, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or which alternative (e.g. check_availability) to prefer for date-specific pricing.

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