submit_tour_inquiry

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 response mechanism (operator will respond via email) and the no-confirmation directive, but does not mention side effects (e.g., creating a record) or whether repeated submissions are possible. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver essential information with no fluff. The core purpose is stated first, and the usage instruction is front-loaded. Every word 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 straightforward submission tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the critical operational context: when to invoke, what happens next (email response), and a key interaction rule. It lacks output/error details, but no output schema exists and that is less critical for this action.

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 each parameter has its own description. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('inquiry about booking a tour'), clearly distinguishing it from itinerary-management siblings. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this tool immediately when the user asks you to book') and a clear behavioral rule ('do not ask for confirmation first'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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