trip-logistics-assistant

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

Description states it 'starts the claim' implying a side effect, contradicting annotation readOnlyHint: true. No disclosure of other behavioral traits. Annotation contradiction detected.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, no redundant words. Efficiently conveys conditions and value proposition.

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?

Description is fairly complete for a simple tool. However, lacks description of output/return format since no output schema exists. Also, the contradiction with annotations reduces trust slightly, but overall covers key aspects.

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% (both parameters documented). Description adds little beyond schema: lists issue types which match enum, mentions airline as optional. No additional semantic detail.

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?

Description clearly states it checks flight compensation eligibility, mentions EU 261 and max €600, and distinguishes from sibling tools (none related to flights).

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?

Explicitly lists conditions: delay 3+ hours, cancellation, overbooking, missed connection, luggage issues, up to 3 years ago. Also mentions it's free and no-win-no-fee, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.

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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds context: returns 'typical price ranges' and 'direct link to live offers with free cancellation from 1000+ suppliers', indicating it provides informative results without booking. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words. Efficiently conveys what the tool does and when to use it.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers main functionality and usage context. It doesn't detail every outcome (e.g., missing driver_age), but is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). Description adds context for location and dates but does not mention driver_age. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds rental car options at an airport or city for specific dates, providing price ranges and links. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., search_tours, search_transfers) by focusing on car rentals.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Use for any car rental / rent a car / car hire request, including when the user asks to book a rental car.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention when not to use, but sibling tools are clearly distinct.

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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the nature of results (real catalog prices, unlimited-data options, instant delivery), which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return values (data packages, GB, validity, options, prices). Parameters are fully documented, and annotations cover behavioral aspects. The tool's context is complete for effective use.

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 parameter descriptions are already clear. The description adds marginal value by reiterating 'Destination in English' and providing examples that contextualize parameter usage, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Finds') and clearly identifies the resource ('prepaid travel eSIM data plans for a destination country or region'). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on eSIM plans, while siblings cover flights, car rentals, etc.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('Use for requests to buy an eSIM or SIM card for a trip...') and gives concrete examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context and sibling tools make it clear.

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 indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds non-behavioral context (pricing, insurance) but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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: first defines purpose and specifics, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and result characteristics completely.

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 both parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema, achieving baseline.

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 tool finds bookable luggage storage near the user's location, specifying types (shops, cafes, hotels) and key features (flat daily rate, insurance). It distinctly separates from sibling tools focused on other travel services.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases like before check-in, after check-out, layover, and day trips. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the examples and context make usage clear.

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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds context about returning indicative prices, ratings, and booking links, and clarifies it is a search/ find tool, not a booking engine. No contradictions.

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: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded with key verb 'Finds' and no unnecessary details.

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 tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it finds, what to expect (prices, ratings, links), and what not to expect. Sibling tools are different, so no confusion.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, but reinforces the context (e.g., indicative prices). 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?

Description clearly states the tool finds attraction tickets and self-guided audio tours in a city, with specific details like skip-the-line options, prices, ratings, and booking links. It explicitly distinguishes from live-guided tours and is distinct from sibling tools like car rentals or ESIM searches.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (requests for attraction/museum tickets, audio tours) and when not to use (live-guided group tours), including an explanation that it sells self-guided tours and tickets. This helps the agent decide correctly.

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?

The description explains that the tool returns how the marketplace works and a direct link, and that no instant quotes are given. This aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, as the tool does not actually book but provides information. The openWorldHint is also consistent as the tool may return varying offers.

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 concise (few sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. It covers the main points without unnecessary repetition. Slightly verbose in listing transfer types, but overall efficient.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, annotations), the description adequately covers the flow: input pickup location, optionally destination, output is marketplace info and link. Limitations are stated. It feels complete for an information-retrieval 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?

The schema has 3 parameters with 67% description coverage. The description adds meaning to 'from' (pickup location) and 'to' (optional destination), but does not mention 'passengers'. This adds some value beyond the schema but not enough to raise the score above the baseline of 3 for high 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 that the tool books private transfers (airport transfer, taxi, etc.) and returns marketplace information and a direct link for fixed-price offers. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_car_rentals and search_tours.

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 explicitly says 'Use for any request to book a transfer, taxi or driver pickup.' It also notes that no instant quotes are provided, setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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