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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses commercial behavior the annotations cannot: no payment taken online, most trips priced on request, and a hard constraint never to add payment terms that aren't present. It also reveals the response shape (`onRequestTrips`, `dates`, `prices` in GBP, `included`/`notIncluded`/`paymentTerms`). Minor gap: no note on result volume or ordering.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause is substantive, but the body is one long run-on paragraph chaining pricing, response fields and trip-type distinctions. The quoting constraint is stated twice ("may be quoted exactly as given" then "also quoted exactly as given; never add terms"), and separate concerns would read better as short sentences.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameters, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it describes the fields returned for both set-price weeks and on-request trips, the currency, and the quote-handling rules. An agent can call this and interpret the result without further documentation.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing to disambiguate. The description instead spends its detail budget on the shape of the returned trip objects, which is useful but doesn't change the parameter score.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("List Follow On Tours' golf trips") and enumerates what each entry contains — courses, hotel, nights, rounds, max group size, page link. It also triangulates against siblings by stating that golf trips are separate from the cricket tours in list_tours.

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?

Explicit routing: "Use this for any golf enquiry", then it names alternatives with conditions — get_trip_details with the slug for a full page, request_quote for on-request trips, and list_tours for cricket. It also explains how to choose between a set-price week and a bespoke trip and to cross-mention the other via `alsoBespoke`/`alsoBookable`.

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