gyg_get_tour

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating it retrieves a record. It does not explain what 'full GetYourGuide record' includes or any constraints, but it does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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 tool has only one required parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description sufficiently tells the agent what it does and how to use it. It could hint at the structure of the returned record, but for a simple ID-based lookup, the current description is largely 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?

The schema descriptions cover all three parameters (tourId, currency, language) at 100%. The description reinforces the need for a numeric ID but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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 'Get the full GetYourGuide record for one tour/activity by its numeric ID.' It specifies the action (get), the resource (full record for a tour/activity), and the method (by numeric ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like gyg_get_tour_availability or gyg_search_tours, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage when you have a numeric ID and need the full record, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools for specific aspects (availability, options, reviews) and search, more explicit guidance would improve the score.

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