gyg_search_tours

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming read-only. Description adds value by explaining the iata: prefix for airports, compact mode behavior, and the extraParams escape hatch for API drift. These details go beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details and a usage tip. Every word contributes. No unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects (extraParams), the description is too brief. It omits pagination behavior (limit, offset), result format (what fields are returned, especially when compact is false), and does not explain the difference between compact and full records. The agent lacks essential context for effective use.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions filters but does not add meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions (e.g., q already includes the iata: example, compact already includes the browsing hint). No additional semantic enrichment.

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 the tool searches tours and activities, specifies filter types (free text, IDs, date range) and sort options. It distinguishes from siblings like gyg_get_tour (single tour) or gyg_list_location_tours (tours by location) by emphasizing broad search and flexibility.

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?

Lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when a location ID is known, gyg_list_location_tours may be more appropriate). While it hints at browsing with compact=true, it does not exclude conditions. Implied usage only.

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