get_tour_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the return format ('returns a JSON string containing...') which gives insight into the output, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but a mutation-minded agent might not be fully assured. This is a moderate disclosure.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the primary action and results, then quickly notes the return type. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool has one well-documented parameter and an output schema (indicated in signals), so the description need not detail return values exhaustively. It covers the key elements: what the tour detail includes (itinerary, stops, pricing, lodging) and the parameter type. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention that batch fetching is supported (though the schema does), but overall it is complete for a simple fetch tool.

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% – the 'course_no' parameter is already described in the schema with examples and batch support. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'detailed information, schedule, pricing, and bus stops for a specific Maitabi mountain bus tour by course_no.' It explicitly identifies the target domain ('Maitabi mountain bus tour') which distinguishes it from 'get_general_tour_detail' and other siblings. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 when you have a course_no, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like get_general_tour_detail or get_tour_calendar. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer from the 'Maitabi mountain bus' context. This is acceptable but not explicit.

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