zurich_tourism

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which indicate safe, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds that the return is a markdown-formatted list based on Schema.org formats, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, auth needs, or pagination. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds moderate value but not substantial transparency.

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 a single, reasonably short paragraph with a separate line for the return format. It is efficient and front-loaded with the main action, though adding bullet points or structured sections could improve scannability. No wasted sentences.

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?

The description gives an overview of what the tool searches and the output format, but it lacks details on parameters (e.g., category types, language options, filtering) and does not provide examples or specify the output schema structure (though output schema exists). For a tool with 4 parameters and a search function, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete in guiding proper invocation.

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% (per context), meaning the input schema's property descriptions are not counted or missing. The tool description contains no information about parameters whatsoever, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema. Since the description fails to add meaning or clarify parameter usage, it scores 1.

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 searches for attractions, restaurants, hotels, and events via the Zurich Tourism API, listing specific categories like sights, gastronomy, accommodations, and activities. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools focusing on different domains (e.g., weather, parking, datasets).

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 usage for tourism-related queries by listing the types of information retrieved, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention any prerequisites. The context from sibling tools suggests differentiation by domain, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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