departi_search_experiences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that results are ranked, personalized to persona, and that an empty list is returned if nothing matches. The only minor gap is not explaining how results are ordered (e.g., ranking criteria) but the annotation coverage is strong.

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 description is a single, well-structured paragraph with three clear sentences. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second adds the personalization detail, and the third provides usage context with sibling differentiation. Every sentence delivers distinct value with zero redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, output fields, personalization aspect, and search behavior (empty list on no match). It lacks detail on sorting/ranking criteria or how persona/traveler_type affect results, but the annotations (openWorldHint) suggest the search is open-ended rather than deterministic. The description is largely complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'persona' or 'traveler_type' interact, or how 'categories' filtering works in practice). It meets the minimum but doesn't enhance the schema's documentation.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Searches') and clearly defines the resource ('bookable tours, activities and local experiences in a destination'). It explicitly lists the return fields (title, category, duration, price, persona-fit score, booking deep-link) and states the personalization aspect ('Matched to the traveller's persona/personality'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like departi_search_accommodation and departi_search_transport.

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 explicit context for when to use this tool: 'Use for "what can I do in X".' It also provides clear when-not-to-use guidance by naming two siblings: 'For a place to stay use departi_search_accommodation; to get there use departi_search_transport.' This completely removes ambiguity about which travel search tool to select.

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