Gentoura Tours

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the information is 'published' and points to a specific source URL, implying a read-only retrieval with no side effects. However, it does not describe the response format, freshness, or any caveats about the static source, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the verb, resource, scope, and source URL. Every element is informative and there is no redundancy 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?

For a zero-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the essential selection-relevant facts: which destinations, what data categories, and the source URL. It does not specify the return format or explicitly route between siblings, but the simplicity of invocation makes this a minor gap.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema. The description adds value by summarizing the content categories (prices, inclusions, exclusions, booking process), which exceeds the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource: Gentoura's published Egypt, Jordan, and combined tour package prices, inclusions, exclusions, and booking process. It also names the source URL, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_tour and search_tours that focus on tour details and discovery rather than pricing.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs published pricing, inclusions, exclusions, or the booking process for Gentoura's tours. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the pricing-focused scope provides clear selection context.

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 behavioral transparency burden. It discloses an important limitation: booking cannot be completed through this tool and the traveller must be directed to page_url. It also explains what page_url enables. It stops short of describing response format or error behavior, but the key workflow constraint is clearly surfaced.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential booking caveats. The second sentence is slightly repetitive, restating that the traveller should be directed to page_url, but it still provides valuable workflow context.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (itinerary, inclusions, pricing, page_url) and how to handle the booking flow. It could mention return shape or errors, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 documentation covers the single slug parameter 100%, including an example. The description adds little beyond saying 'by its slug,' which is sufficient because there are no other parameters to explain.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for one tour package by its slug,' and enumerates the included content (itinerary, inclusions, pricing). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_tours and get_pricing.

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 makes the primary usage context clear: the caller must have a specific slug and wants full tour details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the by-slug and full-details framing implies the distinction from searching and pricing lookup.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool 'Returns tour summaries' rather than modifying data, and clarifies that booking finalization happens via the embedded concierge on page_url, not through the tool itself. This gives the agent a clear read-only mental model. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or exact result count, but these are less critical for a search 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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the search scope, the second enumerates the return fields, and the third explains the significance of page_url. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or repeated schema 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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (title, slug, duration, price, destinations) and the optional page_url, which is essential for booking flow. The only notable omission is the page parameter's behavior, which could leave an agent unsure how to paginate. Overall, the essential context for a search tool is present.

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 coverage is 67%: query and destination have descriptions, but page has none. The description adds the concept of 'duration' as a search dimension, which helps map to the query parameter, and lists output fields that can guide query phrasing. However, it does not clarify the page parameter or its pagination semantics, leaving a gap for agents needing to request additional result pages.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Egypt and Jordan tour packages'), with clear scope by destination, duration, or keyword. It also describes the return type as summaries with specific fields, distinguishing it from siblings like get_tour and get_pricing, which presumably return detailed single-tour or pricing data.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when searching for tours by destination, duration, or keyword. It also explains that returned page_url links host the AI concierge for finalizing dates and booking, implying the tool itself does not complete bookings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternate tools or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.