cricket-travel

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get information' communicates a read-only behavior, and the content list tells the agent what kind of output to expect. It does not describe return formatting, but for a zero-parameter informational tool with no side effects, that is not a meaningful gap.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads the action and resource plus a concise content list; the second gives practical usage triggers. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is minimal in complexity: no parameters, no output schema, no sibling tools. The description covers both what the call returns (company/about information) and when to use it, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so parameter ambiguity is impossible and no parameter explanation is needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for anything.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get information') on a specific resource ('Follow On Tours') and itemizes exactly what content is covered: who they are, products, experience, financial protection, and service mechanics. There are no siblings, so no inter-tool differentiation is required.

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?

Provides explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this when someone asks who Follow On Tours is, whether they cover a sport or destination, or how the service operates.' This gives an agent clear selection criteria, and with no sibling tools, there is no need for when-not or alternative guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the substantive response content (contract position, ABTOT bonding, ATOL relevance) plus the implicit read-only nature via 'Get'. It does not address auth requirements or error behavior, which keeps it below 5 for a total-annotation-vacuum 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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the first establishes what is returned, the second enumerates retrieval triggers. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 0-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies exactly what an agent needs: the object retrieved and the questions it answers. Nothing required to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool takes 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and a precise resource (Follow On Tours' financial protection statement and its position in the contract), including the substantive fact that it is the tour operator and package organiser bonded through ABTOT. An agent can distinguish this from get_about and the list_* siblings without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers: who the customer contracts with, who takes payment, whether the trip is financially protected, or about ATOL. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is unusually clear.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral facts: 'Enquiry-led: no price is quoted and nothing is charged online' tells the agent this is a non-transactional browse step, which prevents it from promising pricing. It says nothing about return shape, pagination, or result limits for a list endpoint, which is the remaining gap.

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 intent is front-loaded in the first clause, and the four sentences each carry distinct information (what is listed, when to use it, the enquiry-only model, the week-building add-on). The opening sentence is long and em-dash heavy, which slightly blurs the enumeration, but there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent would otherwise lack: the scope of the catalog and the enquiry-led, no-charge nature of the interaction. Coverage is solid; only return-format expectations and the routing relationship to the generic list_tours sibling remain unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (empty object schema, 0 required), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly describes a parameterless browse operation rather than implying filters that do not exist.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') and a narrowly scoped resource ('Cape Town day experiences Follow On Tours arranges'), then enumerates the actual offerings (city/peninsula tours, Winelands, whale watching, Marine Big 5, shark cage diving, safari, helicopter). That enumeration distinguishes it from the generic sibling list_tours, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'Use this for any Cape Town or South Africa enquiry' gives a clear activation context, and 'Follow On Tours also builds a full Cape Town week around these on request' points to the adjacent multi-day case. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer list_tours or list_golf_trips) are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: these destinations are bespoke and built to order, so price and departure-date fields do not apply — a genuine gotcha an agent would otherwise misread. It does not cover output shape or ordering, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the pricing/date caveat, then sibling routing, then the triggering question. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a parameterless read list with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies what is needed: what it returns (destinations with their grounds and places), why no price/date appears, and which alternatives to use. An agent can call it correctly from this text alone.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax the description needs to compensate for. The description appropriately explains what the listing contains instead of trying to document nonexistent inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every destination Follow On Tours covers for cricket') plus the scope of what each entry contains (grounds and places). It explicitly names the siblings it is not — list_tours and list_golf_trips — so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when asked where Follow On Tours goes, or whether they cover a country or a ground') and when not to, pointing to list_tours for on-sale tours and list_golf_trips for golf. Nothing is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: trips are 'enquiry-led: no price is quoted and no payment is taken online,' which tells the agent not to expect or attempt transactional actions. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or pagination, but for a read-only catalogue listing the disclosed traits are the ones that matter.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource before the usage rule and the sibling boundary. Every clause carries information; none is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does so concretely (venues, courses, hotel, nights, rounds, max group size, page link). Combined with the enquiry-led disclosure and the sibling boundary, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the shape of the result set (courses, hotel, nights, rounds, max group size, link), which is useful but not a parameter concern.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ... golf trips') and immediately enumerates what the listing contains (venues, courses, hotel, nights, rounds, group size, page link). It also explicitly scopes itself against the sibling list_tours, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a 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?

'Use this for any golf enquiry' is an explicit use condition, and 'Golf trips are separate from the cricket tours in list_tours' names the alternative and the boundary that selects it. Nothing about when to pick this vs list_tours is left to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that only published tours are returned, that announced-but-not-on-sale tours come separately in holdingTours, and warns never to present holding tours as bookable. This gives critical behavioral context beyond a simple list operation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: primary purpose, the key distinction of holdingTours, and the golf-trip caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it efficient despite its length.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is thoroughly complete. It explains what data is returned, the bookability caveat, and the sibling alternative. An agent can correctly invoke this tool and interpret its response.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying the output structure (tours vs holdingTours) and their semantics, which exceeds the baseline and helps the agent understand the response even without an output schema.

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 states it lists published tours with destination, sport, and dates, and explicitly distinguishes from specific tour queries ('before asking about a specific tour') and from golf trips via list_golf_trips. The verb and resource are specific, and the sibling distinction is clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('find out what is on sale before asking about a specific tour') and when-not-to-use with an alternative ('for the golf trips use list_golf_trips'). This fully routes the agent to the correct tool.

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