Liefert das vollstaendige Leistungspaket einer Tour: Highlights, USPs, enthaltene und nicht enthaltene Leistungen, Add-ons, Gruppengroesse, Schwierigkeitsgrad und die Selbstbeteiligungs-/Versicherungsinformation. Kein reiner Preis-/Dauer-Feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Technische Tour-ID, z.B. aus search_touren |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes what data is returned and explicitly blocks misinterpretation as a price/duration feed. However, it does not mention read-only semantics, error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or what happens for invalid tour IDs, which are relevant operational traits.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then uses a colon-separated list to convey a rich set of output fields. The closing clarification 'Kein reiner Preis-/Dauer-Feed' is useful and non-redundant. It is slightly dense but every part contributes value.
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 one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining the return contents in enough detail for an agent to decide and invoke the tool. It covers the major content categories and clarifies scope. Minor gaps such as response status or missing field-level details are acceptable for a simple detail-retrieval tool.
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 input schema already describes the sole 'id' parameter as 'Technische Tour-ID, z.B. aus search_touren' with 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb and object—'Liefert das vollstaendige Leistungspaket einer Tour'—and enumerates concrete content types such as Highlights, USPs, inkludierte/nicht inkludierte Leistungen, Add-ons, Gruppengroesse, Schwierigkeitsgrad, and insurance information. It also distinguishes itself from a pure price/duration feed, which helps differentiate it from siblings like get_termine_preise.
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 an implied usage boundary with 'Kein reiner Preis-/Dauer-Feed', signaling it is not the tool for price/duration-only queries, but it never names an alternative or states a positive 'use this when...' rule. The sibling tools are not referenced explicitly, so guidance for choosing among them 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.
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.
