gyg_get_tour_options

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

readOnlyHint=true already communicates the safe, read-only nature, and 'List' is consistent with that. The description adds the date-range scoping and the output-level notion that options include ticket types, times, and languages, but it does not describe pagination behavior or result structure. This is useful but not rich behavioral context, so a 3 fits the annotated baseline.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element earns its place: the action, the resource, the clarifying examples, and the optional date-range qualifier.

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 read-only list endpoint with a fully schema-documented 7-parameter input, the description gives the essential output concept and a useful optional filter. However, there is no output schema, so more detail about the response shape would help, and the lack of sibling routing guidance leaves a real completeness gap.

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 all parameters thoroughly and the description does not need to compensate. The description mentions date-range filtering and general option semantics but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('bookable options of a tour'), with parenthetical examples ('ticket types, times, languages offered') that clarify exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as gyg_get_tour_availability, so it stops short of a 5, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus gyg_get_tour_availability, gyg_get_tour, or other siblings. The mention of an optional date range describes a capability, not a selection criterion, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and the schema.

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