gyg_search_tours

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the default slim-summary behavior and the view:"full" escape for whole records. This is useful but largely mirrors the schema's detailed view parameter description; the description does not disclose pagination behavior, what happens on an empty query, or rate limits. Acceptable given the annotation covers safety, but not richly additive.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then filter/sort capabilities, then return-shape default with the override. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant facts (search scope, iata syntax, compact-by-default) are front-loaded.

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 13-parameter read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema are largely sufficient: the description states the search scope and return-shape default, and the schema details every parameter including the compact vs full response fields. The only notable gap is the missing differentiation from overlapping list siblings, which is more of a usage-guidance concern than a completeness failure.

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 13 parameters in detail — the baseline is 3. The description's mention of free text, iata: syntax, location/category filters, date range, and sort options only summarizes what the schema already states, adding no new semantic information. It even omits the 'duration' sort option present in the schema enum, though the schema compensates.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search GetYourGuide tours and activities" with clear scope (free text, iata codes, location/category/date filters, sort options). It is clearly a search tool distinct from the get/list siblings by name and by the described filter flexibility, but it never names the sibling it is not — notably gyg_list_location_tours and gyg_list_category_tours overlap with its locationId/categoryId filters, so the boundary is left implicit.

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?

Usage context is implied through the described filters and sort options — an agent can infer this tool is for broad, flexible search across tours. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, no mention of the sibling get/list tools, and no exclusion criteria (e.g., "for a single tour by ID, use gyg_get_tour"). With nine siblings, explicit routing would substantially help.

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