get_tour_segments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the output is raw unaggregated arrays rather than summarized data. However, it says nothing about response size, pagination, rate limits, or that the operation is a non-destructive read, leaving the safety profile implicit.

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 core purpose and sibling contrast are front-loaded in the first two sentences with no filler. The trailing Args block is somewhat formulaic for a single self-evident parameter, but it is short and does not bury the main point.

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 the description need not enumerate return fields, and it correctly focuses on purpose, differentiation, and the one input. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool; only the absence of any safety/pagination note keeps it from the top score.

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 supplies the one parameter description ('The Komoot tour ID'), which adds the Komoot-domain context missing from the bare 'Tour Id' title. That is the minimum needed but adds no format, range, or lookup guidance.

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 and resource ('Get raw segment data') and enumerates exactly what the payload contains (coordinates, surfaces, way types). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_tour_details by contrasting raw segment arrays against aggregated surface data.

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 names the alternative tool and the condition that selects this one: use this for route combination work (splitting tours by surface type, recombining gravel segments) rather than for aggregate surface stats. It gives clear context but never states an explicit exclusion or prerequisite, so it falls just short of the top band.

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