list_district_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key behavioral trait that district groups and counts update dynamically based on other selected filters, which is not evident from the schema. This goes beyond a simple fetch description.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second adds the cascading behavior. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 existence of an output schema, return format is covered. The description states the purpose and a key behavioral nuance. However, it does not address how this tool relates to search_tours or list_filters, which could leave an agent uncertain about when to call it; still, the name and purpose are clear enough for a fetch-style 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%, with detailed parameter descriptions for all 12 optional parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (mountain area/district groups and tour counts) with clear domain context (Maitabi mountain bus tours). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_filters or search_tours, relying on the resource name to imply distinction.

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?

Mentions cascading filtering, which implies use in an interactive filtering context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The 'when to use' is inferred rather than stated.

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