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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context. It does so usefully by disclosing that the response includes the revision token needed to save edits, which is operationally important and not in the annotations or schema.

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 that front-loads the resource and payload, with no filler. It is grammatically a fragment rather than a sentence, which costs a little polish but not clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned components and the revision field. Nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing, though noting the read-only, side-effect-free nature explicitly would round it out.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents tour_id including its 12-hex-character format and source tools. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific resource (the tour) and enumerates the returned content (stops, objects, effects, looks, skies) plus the revision, which is well beyond a tautology of the name. It differentiates itself from list_tours by being the single-tour fetch used for editing, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve'.

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 phrase 'for editing with save_tour' clearly positions this as the read step in an edit workflow and names the paired sibling. It does not state when not to use it (e.g. use list_tours for browsing or draft_tour for drafts), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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