getyourguide_click

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether clicking triggers navigation, submits a form, or has irreversible side effects, whether the call waits for the page to settle, or how it reports failure on a bad element number — all essential context for a browser-interaction tool.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler wording. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the description thin rather than being a structural defect.

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 state-mutating browser action with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is under-specified: it omits preconditions (page open, element index from the most recent read), post-click state (must re-read to see the new page), and error behavior. An agent could invoke it, but would do so without knowing the consequences.

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?

There is a single parameter covered at 100% by the schema ('Element number from the last read'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description's phrase 'numbered element' merely echoes the schema without adding range, provenance, or validation detail, which is the baseline 3 under high coverage.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'Click a numbered element on the current GetYourGuide page.' An agent can tell this is an in-page interaction rather than a navigation (open) or text entry (type) tool. It stops short of 5 because it never names the sibling it is distinguished from, leaving the differentiation 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as getyourguide_type or getyourguide_read. The reference to 'the current page' only weakly implies that a page must already be open and read, and nothing tells the agent what to do if the element number is stale or invalid.

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