get_general_tour_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a JSON string with specific content, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention any side effects (though 'fetch' implies read-only), error handling, rate limits, or potential size implications of batch fetching. The description is accurate but incomplete in disclosing behavioral nuances beyond the basic read operation, earning a middling score.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the return contents in a structured manner. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable for an agent.

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 only one well-documented parameter and an output schema is present (indicating the return structure is formally defined), the description covers the essential context: what the tool fetches and what it returns. It does not mention authentication requirements or behavior for invalid course numbers, but these are likely implicit or covered by the output schema. For a simple read tool, this is nearly complete, though a minor addition about error handling would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, course_no, including its type, range, and the ability to pass a single integer or list. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter itself; it focuses on the output. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it beyond that.

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 the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('complete details, itinerary, pricing, and booking information for a general tour'), including the website domain. It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'general tour', which hints at a distinction from get_tour_detail, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. The purpose is unambiguous and specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as get_tour_detail or search_general_tours. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. While the name and 'general tour' phrasing imply it is for general tour details, the lack of explicit direction leaves the agent to infer usage, which is insufficient given the sibling set includes a similarly named tool.

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