search_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: party profile mapping to tags, currency-converted prices, and appended affiliate campaign values. However, it does not mention the advisory nature of dates or any rate limits/error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds value. No redundant or promotional language.

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 adequately summarizes key result fields (rating, price, URL) and behavioral nuances (affiliate tagging). It omits the advisory-date detail, but that is captured in the input schema. Overall complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds a little context about profile-to-tag mapping but largely restates schema info; it does not clarify maxResults or other undocumented parameters beyond what schema defaults provide.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('tours and activities') with a destination, and it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_stays and search_dining by domain. The Viator API reference adds operational context.

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 clearly implies usage for tours/activities searches based on domain, and the sibling tool names (search_stays, search_dining) reinforce differentiation. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or list alternative tools.

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