getyourguide_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never says whether typing appends to or replaces existing field content, whether it submits the form or presses Enter, what happens on an invalid field number, or whether the field must be in view. For a page-mutating browser action these are material unknowns.

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 filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 two-parameter browser-automation mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out return behavior and the effect on existing field content. An agent can guess the call shape from the schema but not the consequences of invoking it.

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 parameters are already documented; 'numbered field on the current GetYourGuide page' only reinforces that the index refers to the most recent read. No extra meaning such as clearing behavior or focus requirements is added.

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 specific verb ('Type') and resource ('text into a numbered field') scoped to 'the current GetYourGuide page', which cleanly separates it from click/read/open/close siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 is only implied: 'numbered field' plus the schema note 'Field number from the last read' hints that a read must happen first, but the description never states when to type versus click, nor the prerequisite sequence. No when-not guidance is given.

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