get_tour_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully explain that include_coordinates can return 1000+ points and defaults to False to keep responses compact, but says nothing about authentication requirements, failure modes for invalid tour IDs, or whether the call works across all tour types.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a scoped elaboration and a clean Args block; every element is relevant. There is mild repetition between the opening line and the second paragraph about surface/way types.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the description still summarizes the key returned data. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only auth/error behavior is absent, which is a minor gap.

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, and it does: tour_id is identified as the Komoot tour ID and include_coordinates is explained with its default, its payload size, and the reason for the default. Only tour_id's type/format nuance is left implicit.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of a Komoot tour') and enumerates the distinctive payload (surface types, way types), which separates it from siblings like get_tour_segments or download_tour_gpx. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Offers a use context ('essential for gravel ride planning') that implies when the tool matters, but gives no when-not guidance and never points to the sibling tools an agent should prefer for GPX download or segment data. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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