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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context: it explains the tool returns 'full details' of a specific tour and instructs the agent not to invent details but source them here. It provides value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 the essential purpose and content list, followed by explicit usage instruction. No superfluous words; every sentence earns its place. Example keywords in the schema add clarity without cluttering the description.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns (the listed details), when to use it, and instructs against fabrication. It doesn't specify return format or error handling, but given the simplicity and annotations, these are minor gaps.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name', describing it as 'tour name or keyword' with examples. The tool description does not add any extra parameter-specific semantics beyond confirming the purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies since schema 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 clearly states it provides full details of a specific tour, listing concrete aspects like description, program, meeting point, logistics, inclusions/exclusions, and what to bring. It distinguishes itself from siblings (like get_tours) by emphasizing 'specific tour' and instructing to use it 'always when tourist asks about a specific tour'.

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 explicitly states when to use ('use ALWAYS when tourist asks about a specific tour') and gives examples of queries (program, start, meeting, what to bring). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the clear trigger condition and the instruction to always use for specific-tour queries adequately guide the agent.

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