get_tour

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation (returning details) but does not explicitly state any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The description is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded statement of purpose followed by a structured Args section. It wastes no words, though it is in French while the tool name is English. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate true), the description does not need to detail return values. For a simple tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 provides 0% description coverage for parameters (only title and type). The description's Args section adds meaningful context: 'ID du tour Komoot' explains what the integer represents. This compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, going beyond the schema's minimal info.

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 the verb 'get' (via 'Detail complet') and the resource 'tour', listing specific details like distance, elevation, duration, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_tours' (which lists multiple tours without full details) and other getters like 'get_tour_coordinates' (which focuses on a single aspect).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest other tools for specific sub-details (e.g., get_tour_coordinates for coordinates). The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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