Trip

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior ('retrieves') but does not describe the output structure, pagination, authentication, or rate limits. It also fails to define what 'details' entails, which could mislead users expecting specific data.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 output schema and multiple sibling tools covering specific aspects (media, amenities, about, reviews), the description leaves the exact scope of 'details' ambiguous. It lacks information about what is actually returned, making it incomplete for a general-purpose 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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter semantics. It does echo the contentType enum values, but those are already in 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves details for a POI, enumerating content types (hotel, restaurant, attraction) that match the contentType enum. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 'get_poi_full_about' which likely overlaps in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_poi_full_about, get_poi_amenities, or get_poi_reviews. The description lacks any mention of alternatives 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and resource, without mentioning pagination (offset), the meaning of galleryConfig (mvqa vs rr), or any other behavioral characteristics. This leaves significant ambiguity about how the tool operates.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 has five parameters, an enum, and pagination options, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the galleryConfig options, pagination behavior, or what the response contains, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for full understanding.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The mention of 'for a location' aligns with locationIdStr but adds no new meaning 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as fetching a media gallery for a location, using the verb 'Fetches' and specifying the resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, its focus on media distinguishes it from details, amenities, and reviews tools.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only implies usage through its purpose statement, and there is no mention of when not to use or how it compares to sibling tools like get_details or get_poi_reviews.

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 are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates that results are organized by category and that the operation is a read-only fetch, but it does not address potential limitations, response shape details, or any edge-case behavior.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output organization.

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 fetch tool with fully documented schema parameters, the description supplies the core purpose and output nature. An output schema is absent, but 'category-organized amenity list' provides adequate expectation setting, though usage guidance is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents for contentId, lang, and currency.

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 uses specific verb 'Fetches' and resource 'category-organized amenity list for a Point of Interest', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_details and get_poi_reviews. The scope is unambiguous.

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 use when amenity information for a POI is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention any exclusions. No alternatives are named.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetches', implying a read operation, but doesn't describe return format, pagination, error handling, or permission requirements. This falls short of what is needed for a bare description.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, achieving high clarity with minimal 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should convey more about what 'detailed metadata profile' includes or how it relates to required fields. It is minimally adequate for a 4-parameter tool but lacks depth, especially in the absence of behavioral or return-value 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?

The schema descriptions cover all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient detail for each parameter, so this is adequate.

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 fetches a detailed metadata profile (About section) for a location, which is specific and uses a clear verb-resource-relationship. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_details or get_poi_amenities, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose between this and related tools like get_details or get_poi_reviews.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'Fetches reviews' and does not mention pagination (despite a pageToken parameter), potential rate limits, ordering, required permissions, or response format. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, direct sentence: 'Fetches reviews for a Point of Interest (POI).' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero wasted words, making it extremely concise and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, well-documented schema) and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any details about what the response looks like, pagination behavior, or result limits, which would be valuable for an agent invoking the tool without an output schema.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 action ('Fetches') and the resource ('reviews for a Point of Interest (POI)'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_media_gallery or get_poi_amenities. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_details or get_poi_full_about. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it searches and requires a geoId, but omits important details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, response structure, or what happens with invalid geoIds. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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, with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives a mandatory prerequisite. No extraneous information or repetition. The key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and prerequisite, but for a tool with five parameters and no output schema, it lacks additional context about expected return values, pagination (despite a pageToken parameter), or how to handle different content types. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all five parameters, so the description adds little value beyond what is already structured. It mentions geoId but does not elaborate on parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema's existing descriptions. 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's function: searching for hotels, restaurants, or attractions by location. It uses a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('listings'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_details by focusing on discovery rather than retrieval of a specific entity.

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 instructs the agent to obtain a valid geoId via 'trip_typeahead' before using this tool, providing a clear prerequisite and pointing to the relevant sibling. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a search 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, does not mention rate limits, result limits, ordering, or error behavior. It only discloses that it returns a list with geoId, which is insufficient for full transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output, and contains no filler. Every word contributes value, and the examples are useful and concise.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and return type. It covers the query parameter through examples and the return value via 'list ... with geoId.' However, it lacks details on result limits or ordering, which prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a small amount of value by showing example queries ('bandung', 'hilton'), but it does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs an autocomplete typeahead search with specific verb and resource ('Performs an autocomplete typeahead search') and describes the output (list of locations/hotels/restaurants/attractions with geoId). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_details and search_listings by focusing on typeahead/autocomplete behavior.

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 usage for autocomplete/typeahead scenarios through its wording and examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_listings, nor does it mention exclusions. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving it at implied usage level.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns 'requests used and remaining', which is useful. However, it doesn't mention details like rate limit reset time, headers, or error behavior. For a read-only stats endpoint, this is basic but adequate. A higher score would require additional context like pagination or rate limit window information.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. Every word earns its place: it names the resource, the action, and the output details. No fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (zero params, no output schema) and the description covers the core purpose. It could mention that the response format follows standard rate limit conventions, but given the simplicity, this is not a significant gap. Sibling tools are unrelated, so the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms there is nothing to configure, which is correct. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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's purpose: 'Retrieves the current user's API rate limits'. It specifies the resource (API rate limits) and distinguishes this from sibling tools that deal with POI data, media, and search. The verb 'retrieves' is specific and unambiguous.

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 context signals show zero parameters and the description implies this is a simple, safety-check tool for rate limits. While it doesn't explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives, the sibling tools are all about content retrieval (get_details, get_media_gallery, etc.), making it obvious this is for API usage monitoring. It would benefit from an explicit 'use this to check your API limits' but the context makes it clear enough.

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