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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context (scope: active tours; return contents: prices and dates) but does not go deeper into pagination, result limits, or why some tours might be excluded from 'active'. This is comparable to the calibrated baseline for annotation-backed tools.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the core function, the second adds usage context. Everything present earns its place, and nothing important is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 low-complexity tool (one optional parameter, fully documented schema, robust annotations, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it returns and when to call it. The main gap is not clarifying how it differs from get_tour_details/get_tour_availability in the usage guidance, but overall the tool is adequately specified.

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%: the single optional parameter activity_type is fully documented with concrete filter examples (рыбалка, вулканы, медведи, гейзеры). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Получить активные туры из платформы TourHab') plus return content (prices and dates), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_tour_details and get_tour_availability by emphasizing 'active tours' as a listing, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 second sentence gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Используй когда турист спрашивает о конкретных турах или программах.' However, it provides no exclusions or routing to alternatives, which matters here because 'конкретных турах' could plausibly overlap with get_tour_details, creating mild ambiguity.

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