get_tours_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It only discloses that 'Prices are converted to USD,' which is a minor behavioral detail. It does not mention how results are sorted, pagination, return format, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a fully transparent description.

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 two sentences long, with the main purpose front-loaded and a single extra detail (USD conversion) appended. No unnecessary words or repetition; every element earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and a notable side-effect (USD conversion), but omits expected behaviors like return type or result list characteristics. It is adequate for simple usage but has gaps that an agent might need to probe.

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 documents all three parameters (radius, latitude, longitude). The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema; it only restates that coordinates are used. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search for' with a clear resource ('tours and activities') and a precise location scoping ('using latitude and longitude coordinates'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_flights and get_hotels by focusing on tour/activity content.

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 implies when to use the tool (when searching for tours/activities at a coordinate) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No direct exclusions or contrast with sibling tools, so usage guidance is merely implied.

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