10Life Travel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that later plan calls carry a purchase_url and that comparison output is not a personal recommendation or policy — useful framing for an agent handling user-facing advice.

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?

Four short sentences, with the operation front-loaded and the prerequisite immediately after. The disclaimer sentence is somewhat boilerplate but does carry compliance value, so nothing is clearly wasted.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response — and it does so by naming the five categories of values returned. It stops short of saying how the values are structured (grouped vs flat), which is the only remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate. The enumerated return categories effectively serve as the parameter vocabulary the agent will later use with sibling tools.

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 ('List') and enumerates exactly what is returned: destinations, insurers, feature filters, score floors, sort orders. This clearly marks it as a vocabulary/metadata tool distinct from list_travel_plans, though the relationship to get_travel_plan is left unaddressed.

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?

'Call this before list_travel_plans' gives an explicit ordering and prerequisite, and the purchase_url sentence clarifies downstream context. There is no stated 'when-not' or exclusion, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavior: not-found semantics for non-matching filters, that purchase_url is included in the result, and the caveat that "Figures are indicative" — details an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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 with zero filler, and the core identity (one plan, filtered, with purchase_url) is front-loaded. Each sentence carries distinct information: identity, not-found rule, and data caveat.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and the 100%-covered 20-parameter schema carries the argument detail. The remaining gap is only that the planCode prerequisite and the single-vs-list routing are left implicit rather than stated.

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 20 parameters, including the filter flags and traveller object; baseline is 3. The phrase "under the same filters as list_travel_plans" adds a useful hint that the filter set mirrors the sibling, but no parameter-level meaning beyond that.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Return one single-trip plan") and scopes it as a single-item counterpart to list_travel_plans. The differentiation from the sibling is present but leans on the phrase "same filters as list_travel_plans" rather than stating outright that this is the detail lookup for one plan.

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?

"A plan that does not match the filters is not found" implies the tool is used for retrieval within an existing filtered comparison, and the schema's planCode note confirms it follows list_travel_plans. However, the description never explicitly says when to reach for this instead of list_travel_plans or what prerequisite (a prior planCode) it needs.

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 establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description adds genuinely new traits beyond them: a hard cap of 5 results, no pagination, indicative figures, and that the product page is authoritative for price and cover. It does not cover rate limits or failure behaviour, but for a read-only lookup this is solid added context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and the result cap, then the two caveats (no next page, indicative figures, product page authoritative). Every sentence carries decision-relevant information with no restatement of the title or schema.

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 an output schema present, return-shape explanation is correctly omitted, and the 100%-covered input schema carries parameter detail. The description supplies the result-cap and pagination caveats an agent needs to plan a call. The only minor gap is not pointing at the sibling tools for code lookup or follow-up detail.

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 all 19 parameters including the nested travellers object and enums are already documented. The description only gestures at the main filter axes (destination, trip length, traveller mix) and adds nothing about sort, filters or priorRecommendationId that the schema does not already give. 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 and resource plus scope: at most 5 single-trip travel plans for one destination, trip length and traveller mix, and names the returned fields (scores, cover limits, premium, purchase_url). It is clearly a filtered-list tool, distinguishable from get_travel_plan (single plan) and describe_travel_decoder by inference rather than explicit mention, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 implies its usage window by bounding results to 5 and declaring "There is no next page", which tells the agent not to paginate. However it never states when to prefer this over get_travel_plan for detail, nor when to call describe_travel_decoder first for region/insurer codes (that hint lives only in the schema). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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