vt_get_attraction

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered outside the description. The description adds value by listing the response fields, but it does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or any other operational traits beyond what the annotations and schema already convey.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then efficiently lists the key response contents. There is no repetition, filler, or redundant restating of the schema.

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 single-resource read tool with rich schema descriptions and openWorldHint, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, the lookup key, and the main return categories. It could mention what happens when the attraction id is invalid or unknown, but the annotations and schema make this a minor 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%, and the parameter descriptions are already detailed, especially for view and campaign_value. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full load.

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 names a specific action (get details) and a specific resource (one Viator attraction by id), and it lists representative fields returned. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like vt_search_attractions, which would be used to find attractions rather than fetch one by id.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool should be used when the agent already knows an attraction_id, which is a useful contextual signal. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as vt_search_attractions for locating an id, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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