tool_get_stopover_guide

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

No annotations are given, so the description fully discloses behavior: 'Read-only. No auth required.' It explains the data source (built-in curated dataset for 10 hubs), behavior for city excursions (only suggested when layover_hours is sufficient), transit visa check logic, and error handling (returns error field with supported IATA codes for unsupported airports).

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 and well-structured: a clear header, then body paragraphs explaining scope, usage, and behavior, followed by a bullet-like list of argument descriptions. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains return values: 'Returns in-terminal activities, city excursion options ... and transit visa status for the given passport.' It also covers error cases and lists supported hubs. For a tool with 3 parameters and moderate complexity, the description is fully complete.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides thorough parameter explanations in the 'Args' section: airport as IATA code, layover_hours as decimal hours, and passport_country as ISO-2 code with option to omit. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a layover activity guide for a major hub airport.' It specifies the verb (Get), resource (layover activity guide), and scope (major hub airports). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'tool_check_transit_visa' by noting that this tool includes activities and transit visa info together.

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?

Explicit usage guidelines are provided: 'Use this when the user has a confirmed layover and wants to make use of the time.' It also provides a clear alternative: 'Use tool_check_transit_visa for a standalone transit visa check without activity content.' Additionally, it warns not to use for unsupported airports and lists the supported hubs.

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