search_general_tours

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

The description discloses the return format (JSON string with matching tours, total count, pagination, and course numbers), which is useful beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency and does not mention side effects, limitations, or whether it is read-only (though 'Search' implies it).

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the return format, making it 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?

Given the output schema exists and parameters are fully described in the schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return value. It lacks usage differentiation guidance, but overall the description is complete for a search tool with rich schema information.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter info. The description does not add any semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to given the coverage.

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 ('Search') and resource ('general travel tours and mountain climbing packages') on a specific website. It is specific enough to convey the tool's function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'search_tours', leaving the exact scope of 'general' vs 'tours' open.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_tours, get_tour_detail, or list_filters. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are mentioned. The 'general' label hints at a category, but this is not explicit.

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