search_experiences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only search operation with open-world semantics. The description adds useful context about the types of content searched (shows, theatre, events, tours, experiences) and the tickadoo® platform, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality, and the second sentence provides clear usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 that this is a search tool with good annotations (read-only, open-world) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what's being searched and when to use it. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., result format, pagination), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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%, with both parameters ('city' and 'language') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain city validation rules or language code formats). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Search for shows, theatre, events, tours and experiences') and resource ('in a specific city on tickadoo®'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_nearby_experiences' (which implies proximity-based search) and 'get_experience_details' (which retrieves specific item details). The verb 'search' is precise and the resource scope is well-defined.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a user asks what to do in a city, wants event/show recommendations, or is looking for tickets.' This gives clear context for invocation and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'list_cities' (which lists available cities rather than searching within one).

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