Votura Tours

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds beyond that: it discloses the tool returns a shareable URL and mandates that the agent present it as a clickable link and credit Votura. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations do not provide, and it does not contradict the read-only hint.

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 two sentences, tightly front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action and return content; the second delivers an actionable presentation rule. No filler or redundancy.

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, the description compensates by explicitly listing what will be returned: a list of stops with names, categories, coordinates, and a shareable Votura URL. It also covers the required presentation behavior. Minor omissions like error handling or pagination are not critical for this simple read-only 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both tour_id and language fully documented in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics—it only mentions the ID generically. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Get full details for a specific Votura tour by its ID', which is a specific verb-resource pair and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling search_tours tool (which finds tours). It also enumerates the key return elements (stops, names, categories, coordinates, URL), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool: when you have a tour ID and need full details. However, it does not explicitly name search_tours as the alternative for discovering tours. The schema parameter description does mention 'obtained from search_tours', but the description text itself lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative reference.

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?

Annotations already mark it as readOnly, but the description goes further by specifying exact return fields (place names, addresses, ratings, coordinates, URL) and a mandatory presentation rule ('present each place's url as a clickable link and credit Votura'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, return data, and a required output formatting instruction. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the main verb appears in the first sentence.

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, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (names, addresses, ratings, coordinates, URL) and includes a necessary attribution/formatting requirement. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool for a search use case.

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?

Input schema already documents all five parameters with full coverage, so the description adds little new parameter-level information. It only reiterates the category examples and city/coordinates options already present in the schema.

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 ('Find') and resource ('points of interest near a city or coordinates'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_tours. It also mentions optional category filtering, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 states when to use the tool ('near a city or coordinates') and what it can filter by, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., 'for tours, use search_tours'), so it stops short of full guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing returned fields and instructing that the URL must be a clickable link with Votura credit. It does not discuss rate limits or errors, but for a read-only search tool the provided context is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and criteria, and the second sentence adds a critical output requirement. Every word earns its place with 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?

Given the read-only nature, full schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and presentation rules. It gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes 'city or coordinates' and transport types but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('Votura tours'), specifies search criteria (city/coordinates, transport types), and lists return fields. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like search_places (places vs. tours) and get_tour_details (search vs. details), even without naming them.

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 conveys a clear usage context: use when looking for audio tours near a city or coordinates. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and there are no competing tools with overlapping descriptions.

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