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 genuine behavioral value by disclosing the shape of the returned tour object (steps, theme, lead capture, CTA, published link), which matters because there is no output 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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the payload fields. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical "(com ids, destaque e clique em 0..1)" is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic.

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 usefully compensates by enumerating what the returned tour contains. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient; error cases such as an unknown tourId are unaddressed but minor.

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% and the single tourId parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its provenance from create_tour or list_tours). The description adds no further parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb ("Mostra") and resource ("um tour"), and enumerates the returned payload (steps with ids/highlight/click, theme, lead capture, final CTA, published link). This is clearly distinguishable from mutating siblings like create_tour or set_theme, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_tours.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_tours for browsing versus this tool for a single tour. Usage is only inferable from the name and the tourId parameter.

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