Vergleicht 2 bis 4 Touren fair anhand des vollstaendigen Leistungspakets (Leistungen, Add-ons, Gruppengroesse, Selbstbeteiligung, Schwierigkeitsgrad) -- niemals nur anhand des Preises.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does disclose the comparison methodology: fair comparison across Leistungen, Add-ons, Gruppengroesse, Selbstbeteiligung, Schwierigkeitsgrad, and the explicit rule never to compare only by price. It does not discuss output format or side effects, but for a comparison tool these are less critical.
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 well-structured German sentence that front-loads the action and cardinality, then details the comparison criteria, with no redundant 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 simple tool with one array parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it compares, how many tours, and the core comparison basis. It does not explain the return value or where tour IDs come from, but siblings like search_touren supply that context and complexity is low.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys that up to 4 tours (min 2) are compared and what dimensions are used, but it never explicitly states that the ids array contains tour identifiers or how invalid/nonexistent IDs are handled. Useful but not fully compensating for the coverage gap.
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 names the specific action (Vergleicht), the resource (Touren), the allowed cardinality (2 bis 4), and the comparison dimensions, and distinguishes itself from price-only tools with 'niemals nur anhand des Preises'. This makes it clear what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools.
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 a clear usage context: use it to compare 2-4 tours based on the full service package rather than price alone. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or scenarios where they should be preferred, but the price-only exclusion provides useful triage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a clear stage in the tour journey: discovery, details, comparison, availability/pricing, and next steps. There is no serious functional overlap; even the shared price information appears in clearly different contexts.
All tool names follow a lowercase verb_noun snake_case pattern: compare_touren, search_touren, get_next_step, get_termine_preise, get_tour_details. The verbs are descriptive and the pattern is uniformly applied.
Five tools is well-scoped for this domain. Each tool has a distinct job and together they cover a full customer journey without unnecessary redundancy or sprawl.
The set covers search, details, comparison, dates/prices, and next-step guidance, which serves most tour-information requests well. A direct booking or inquiry-creation tool is missing, but get_next_step provides a contact path, so this is only a minor gap.
