getyourguide_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the important consequence: credits keep running until the session is closed, which is a real cost behavior an agent should know. It omits what happens on repeated close, whether state persists, or whether it errors when no session exists.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and appends both the timing and the motivation. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a zero-argument teardown tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and why it matters. The only gap is failure/idempotency behavior, which is minor at this complexity.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The empty schema with additionalProperties=false is fully consistent with the stated purpose.

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 ('Close') and resource ('GetYourGuide browser session'), which makes it unmistakably distinct from the read/click/type/open siblings. It stops short of the top mark only because it never names the complementary 'open' tool explicitly.

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?

Provides a clear trigger condition ('when the work is done') rather than leaving timing to inference. There are no when-not cases or explicit alternatives, but for a terminal cleanup action there is little ambiguity to resolve.

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