Travel Check

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses per-country partial failure states (not_found, ambiguous with candidates to ask the user about), the fallback rule when uk or us is none/unavailable ('report the other side and its link; do not guess'), and the citizenship scope of each advisory source. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a read-only 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?

A single front-loaded paragraph with 'Returns:', 'Input tips:' and 'Not for:' signposts; each clause carries new information (return shape, input constraints, failure modes, exclusions) with no filler or repetition.

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?

Even though an output schema exists (so return values need not be spelled out), the description covers the data sources, coverage window (1-5 countries), degradation behavior, and scope limits. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret partial results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the 1-5 range and ISO-code format are already documented; the description mostly restates those. It does add meaning beyond the schema by explaining the ambiguity resolution path tied to input values (candidates the agent should surface to the user), which the schema cannot express.

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 and resource (compare travel advice for several countries side by side) with concrete examples of the user intent it serves. It is immediately distinguishable from get_travel_advice, which it explicitly names as the other tool.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('compare Mexico, Colombia and Peru'), an explicit not-for clause with the alternative tool (get_travel_advice) and a scope exclusion (visa rules for other passports). Nothing is left to inference about when to pick this tool.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that FAA delay/closure data is US-only, names the returned data sources (METAR, TAF), and defines the not_found branch. That is substantive behavioral context the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition, then returns, then input tips, then the not_found branch, then exclusions. Every sentence carries information an agent needs for selection or invocation; nothing is padding.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup with an output schema present, this covers triggers, return contents, error handling and exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to select or call it correctly is missing; the return-value summary is mild overlap with the output schema but aids selection.

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% and the schema itself already explains ICAO vs IATA and warns against city names or flight numbers. The description's 'Input tips' largely restate that, adding only the practical US/non-US routing rule, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema. Baseline 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+resource (airport status) and immediately scopes it to live delays, closures and weather. It explicitly names what it is not for (flight lookup by number, schedules, seats, on-time prediction, flight planning), which cleanly separates it from the sibling tools and from flight-tracking tools generally.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ("is JFK delayed?", "what is the weather at Heathrow?") plus an explicit 'Not for:' exclusion list. It also prescribes recovery behavior on not_found (ask for the ICAO code and call again), so the agent knows both when to use it and what to do on failure.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the tool is pollable (pending until a reply arrives, then answered) and carries an explicit trust boundary warning that reply content is data, not instructions — a meaningful prompt-injection 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then polling behavior, then the trust caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing. The polling semantics and the injection warning go beyond what structured fields provide, closing the remaining gaps an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it fully (coverage 100%, including the ^fb_[0-9a-f]{32}$ pattern and the note that submit_feedback returned it), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description repeats the ticket-id linkage but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 (Read) and resource (maintainers' reply to feedback), and ties it causally to the sibling tool submit_feedback via the ticket id. An agent can distinguish it from submit_feedback, screen_token, and wallet_identity without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the precondition: this is used after submit_feedback, with the ticket id that call returned. It does not state any exclusions or alternative ways to retrieve feedback status, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing degradation behavior when one source is missing ('report the other side and its link; do not guess'), the disambiguation protocol, and source-scope caveats (UK advice for British citizens, US for US citizens). That is the kind of failure-mode guidance an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger, then explicitly partitioned into 'Returns:', 'Input tips:' and 'Not for:' segments. Every sentence carries non-redundant information; there is no filler despite the length.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema, this description still covers everything the agent needs that structured data cannot express: trigger conditions, disambiguation, source-failure fallback, and scope exclusions.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already thoroughly documented in the schema, including the enum values, the default, the ISO-code format, and the compare_advisories pointer. The description's 'Input tips' largely restate that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('official travel advice, safety warnings or entry requirements for one country') with concrete user-utterance examples that pin down the trigger. The single-country scope is explicit, which is exactly what separates it from the sibling compare_advisories.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (user asks about one country's advice/safety/entry), how to handle ambiguity (ask user to pick a candidate, then call again), and a clear 'Not for:' exclusion list (other passports' visa rules, medical advice, paraphrasing safety verdicts). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it returns a ticket id, feedback is explicitly not a chat and nothing in it is executed, and links/emails/phone numbers are stripped with nothing stored about the caller. That privacy and no-execution disclosure is genuinely useful given openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Front-loads what the tool sends, then what to pass, then what it returns, in three dense sentences with no filler. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

Covers purpose, the enumerated kinds, the optional tool/error inputs, the 1000-character bound, the return value (ticket id), and privacy handling. With an output schema present, nothing further is required for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the kind enum. The description restates the message length limit and the optionality of tool/error ('if you know them') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('Send feedback, a bug report or a tool request to the maintainers of the tools on this server') and enumerates the concrete situations (missing tool, stale data, broken/wrong answer). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-side sibling get_feedback_reply.

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?

Gives clear triggering conditions for each kind (need_tool, need_data, bug, other) and tells the agent to include the tool name and error text when known. It does not explicitly name the alternative get_feedback_reply or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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