Liefert alle aktuellen Termine, deren Status und Preise einer Tour, inklusive Hinweisen wie "in Planung", "auf Anfrage" oder "derzeit kein Termin ausgeschrieben", falls zutreffend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently reveals that the response may contain notices like 'in Planung', 'auf Anfrage', or 'kein Termin ausgeschrieben', and uses a non-mutating verb, but it does not state side-effect-free behavior, error handling, or permissions.
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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with every clause carrying meaning. 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 one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description covers what is returned (dates, statuses, prices, conditional notices) and the resource. It is slightly incomplete only in not specifying the response structure or behavior for an unknown tour ID.
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% and the only parameter is a bare string 'id'. The description adds some meaning by tying the ID to 'einer Tour', suggesting it is a tour identifier, but it does not explicitly define the ID format or domain beyond that.
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 specific retrieval verb ('Liefert') and names a precise resource: all current appointments, their status and prices for a tour, including conditional notes. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like search_touren or compare_touren, which have different purposes.
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 implies this is the tool for tour date and price inquiries, but it gives no explicit 'when to use' conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives among the siblings. An agent must infer the boundary from the tool name and description.
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.
