getyourguide_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three things being checked (account, credits, connection), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not describe the response shape, and gives no detail on failure or permission scenarios.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, though 'your Cotlet.dev account and GetYourGuide' followed by 'account, credits and GetYourGuide connection' repeats 'account' and is slightly awkward. It is efficient but not maximally tight.

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-parameter status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is checked but omits what a successful or failed check returns and how an agent should interpret the result. It is adequate but leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to act on the status.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist, and none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the resources verified: account, credits, and GetYourGuide connection. It is clear this is a readiness/status tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling action tools like getyourguide_open or getyourguide_read.

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 'Check that your ... are ready' implies a pre-flight or diagnostic use case before invoking other GetYourGuide tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of expected preconditions.

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