Obtener Atracciones Turísticas

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (list with name, description, location, images) and provides concrete search examples, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples) and uses bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters, though the example queries could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: clear purpose, parameter guidance, return format, and usage examples. The main gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description compensates by describing the return format. It could benefit from more explicit sibling tool differentiation.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (city_id and search). The description repeats this information in the 'Args' section and provides example keywords ('playa', 'museo', 'parque'), but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Obtiene' - gets) and resource ('atracciones turísticas de Colombia'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_cities or search_colombia by focusing specifically on tourist attractions. The description explicitly mentions filtering by city or keyword, which adds specificity.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (searching for tourist attractions by city or keyword) and includes example queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like when to use search_colombia instead).

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