gyg_get_tour_reviews

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by describing a read-only listing operation. It adds context about the response structure (rating outline + individual reviews) but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, sorting defaults, or potential rate limits. The annotation carries the safety disclosure, so the description adds moderate value.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it quick to parse.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level summary but omits details about pagination, sorting, and the exact format of the 'rating outline'. It is adequate for a basic understanding but could be more 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description does not add any new meaning to the parameters; it only repeats that the tool lists reviews. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the burden.

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 resource ('customer reviews for a tour') and adds detail about output ('rating outline plus individual review items'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that deal with locations, availability, or tours.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any conditions. The usage is implied by the purpose (get reviews), but no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead.

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