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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the $0.10 cost, API key requirement, and the data scoping to completed/confirmed travel. This gives an agent useful operational and semantic context beyond the structured 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?

The description is extremely concise, with every element earning its place: the scope qualifier, cost, and authentication requirement. It is front-loaded and contains no 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?

Despite the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description fails to explain the two parameters, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct request. The simple nature of the tool and safety annotations are positives, but the complete absence of parameter semantics makes it insufficiently complete.

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 0% and the description does not mention 'to' or 'from' at all. An agent has no guidance on what these parameters mean (e.g., date range, location bounds) or what format to provide them in, which is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 name 'get_travel_history' combined with the description's scope qualifier 'Completed/confirmed travel only' clearly identifies this as a retrieval operation for a specific subset of travel records. It is not a tautology and adds meaningful clarification, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_trips or get_location_history.

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 when to use this tool ('completed/confirmed travel only'), which suggests it is not for planned or in-progress travel. However, it does not name specific alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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