search_tours

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that results are a JSON string with specific contents (seat options, pricing, departure dates, course numbers), which is positive. However, it omits pagination mechanics, result limits, error behavior, and how filters interact, leaving notable transparency gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 concise sentences front-load the verb and resource, and the return-value summary is efficiently worded. Every sentence earns its place without fluff or redundancy.

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?

With 13 parameters but full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core action and return content. It lacks guidance on pagination, filter combinations, and sibling tool differentiation, but these are partially mitigated by the schema and the tool's relatively straightforward search nature.

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 describes 100% of parameters with detailed examples and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic phrase 'detailed filter criteria', and it does not explain parameter relationships or conditional requirements.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and names the exact resource 'mountain bus tours and lodge packages on Maitabi', clearly distinguishing from sibling search_general_tours with the 'mountain' qualifier. It also mentions detailed filter criteria, grounding the tool's purpose.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tool guidance is given. The domain-specific language implies it is for mountain bus tours, but it never states when to prefer this over search_general_tours or other siblings. Usage context is only implied, not clarified.

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