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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: creation consumes plan quota, and the 'org' visibility value requires a company owner/manager role. It still omits what happens if quota is exhausted or which visibility/format defaults apply when fields are omitted.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, followed by a dense field inventory where each entry carries information the schema lacks (required flag, units, enum values, permission constraint). There is no filler or repetition.

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 13-parameter creation tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the required field, value domains, quota impact, and a key auth constraint. Remaining gaps are defaults for omitted optional fields and any relationship to sibling creation tools.

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 0%, so the schema documents only names and types; the description compensates well by marking name as required, giving units for estimatedDuration (min), and spelling out the allowed values for tourFormat, visibility, and broadcastMode plus the permission constraint on 'org'. It still leaves tourType, category, and routerProfileId semantically unexplained.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new tour template'), which is unambiguous and distinct from read/update siblings like get_my_template and update_template. It does not, however, distinguish itself from duplicate_template, which also produces a new template, leaving that routing decision to the agent.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_template (copy an existing one) or create_program. The only contextual guidance is a parameter-level prerequisite ('org only for a company owner/manager') and 'The plan quota applies', neither of which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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