CityWalk Plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup by using 'look up', but it does not explicitly state idempotency, error handling (e.g., if the place is not found), or matching behavior (exact vs fuzzy). Listing return fields adds transparency but leaves gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It immediately states the action ('Look up one place'), specifies the data source, and lists return fields in parentheses.

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 lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return shape by listing fields. It lacks explicit mention of singular vs plural result format but 'one place' implies a single object. No significant gaps given tool simplicity.

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% with both parameters already described concisely in the input schema. The tool description repeats those exact descriptions, adding no new semantic meaning. With high schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states the tool looks up one place in a city's CityWalk Plan catalog and enumerates the returned fields (type, neighborhood, suggested duration, etc.). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings list_cities and plan_city_walk.

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 that the tool is used when you need details on a specific place, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_cities or plan_city_walk), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states a read-only listing operation with no side effects, which is adequately transparent.

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 with no wasted words; front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description fully covers what it does and when to use it, with no missing 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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter info but doesn't need to.

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 lists over 50 supported cities grouped by region, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_place and plan_city_walk.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Call this first if unsure whether a city is supported' provides clear context for when to use 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that stops are real with verified coordinates (not AI-invented), grouped by neighborhood to minimize backtracking, and returns a shareable link. This gives good insight into behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 with purpose, each sentence adds value: purpose, quality/grouping, output. No unnecessary words.

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 and moderate complexity, description covers key aspects: input, quality of stops, grouping strategy, output format. Could benefit from brief mention of itinerary structure (e.g., stops per day, times) but sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds context about grouping by neighborhood which relates to days/pace, but doesn't elaborate on each parameter beyond what schema already provides.

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 generates a day-by-day walking itinerary for a city, specifying it uses a hand-curated catalog of real places. It distinguishes from siblings like get_place and list_cities which are for single places or city lists.

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?

Clear context: use when you need a multi-day walking itinerary for a city. Siblings are different tools; no explicit when-not-to-use, but purpose is unambiguous.

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