gyg_get_tour_availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains (participant categories, addons, dates with ranges) and characterizing the operation as lighter than the options endpoint. It does not address pagination or rate limits, but that is not a major gap for a simple read-only availability check.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and returned data are front-loaded, and the comparison with gyg_get_tour_options is placed at the end as a concise differentiator.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the needed context: what the tool returns, when to use it, and how it differs from a similar sibling. It could be slightly richer in describing the shape of the available dates or what 'addons' means, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get booking availability for a tour') and enumerates the returned components: participant categories, addons, and available dates with participant ranges. It also distinguishes itself from gyg_get_tour_options by framing itself as the lighter alternative, so an agent can separate the two at a glance.

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?

Explicitly names the sibling alternative (gyg_get_tour_options) and gives the selection condition: use this when you only need 'when can I go'. This is clear routing guidance that leaves little to inference.

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