get_attraction_details

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 only says 'get' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is a gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words: one sentence for purpose and one for parameter. The argument with example is front-loaded. Every part 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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema exists, the description adequately explains the input source. However, it is missing details about what the output contains (though covered by schema), potential errors, or prerequisites beyond the slug. It is minimally complete but not rich.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the slug comes from search_attractions and provides an example. This makes the parameter's origin and format clear.

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 it gets detailed information about a specific attraction, using a verb+resource pattern. It references the slug from search_attractions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_attractions (which lists attractions) and get_hotel_details (for hotels).

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?

It explicitly instructs that the slug comes from search_attractions, implying a usage flow: first search, then get details. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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