KidPaths Family Outings

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results can contain failed/unknown constraints that must be preserved, and admission subtotals are estimates rather than checkout prices. It does not cover what happens on cross-city IDs or how partial failures are surfaced, but the added output-handling guidance is substantive.

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 short sentences with the scoping rule front-loaded, then output-handling caveats. Terse to the point of being telegraphic ("Preserve failed and unknown constraints" lacks a subject), but nothing is padding.

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 tool with four parameters, two of them nested objects, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid. Price semantics and unknown-data handling are covered, but an agent cannot tell from this text what party or filters do or how filtering affects the comparison, which is a material gap given the complexity.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, yet it only restates the ids cardinality (already enforced by minItems/maxItems) and adds the same-city rule the schema cannot express. The two nested objects — party (adults, child_ages, ticket_category) and filters (indoor, stroller, max_admission_usd, all_children_suitable) — are never mentioned, leaving their purpose and interaction entirely unexplained.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Compare 2-4 IDs") with scope constraints (same city), which is far more than the title restates. It only implicitly points at the sibling that produces the IDs ("returned by search") rather than naming search_family_activities, and never differentiates itself from plan_family_outing or get_activity_details.

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?

Gives a clear precondition and workflow position: the IDs must come from a prior search and must share a city, so the agent knows this is a second-step tool. It stops short of stating when to prefer comparing over fetching details for one ID, or when to hand off to plan_family_outing.

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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the response carries dated sources and uncertainty, and may contain disclosed external attraction-admission referrals, which explains the openWorldHint. It still doesn't say anything about error behavior or shape/size of the result.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval contract, followed by what the payload contains and what it does not. Every clause earns its place.

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, the description usefully covers the return contents (sources, uncertainty, referrals) and negative capability scope. However, for a tool with four parameters including a nested required-by-schema-optional object, the total silence on `party` and `filters` leaves the agent unable to use those parameters correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. Only the `ids` parameter is hinted at ("ID returned by search"); `city`, `party` (adults, child_ages, ticket_category) and `filters` (indoor, stroller, max_admission_usd, all_children_suitable) are undocumented in both schema and description, and the nested `party` object is non-obvious.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Get one activity") with the exact identifier source ("an ID returned by search"), which implicitly separates it from search_family_activities. It stops short of naming the sibling tools, so it isn't fully differentiated.

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 phrase "using an ID returned by search" establishes the prerequisite and the call order clearly. The closing sentence also sets explicit out-of-scope boundaries (no live inventory, reservations, payment, paid digital products), though no alternative tool is named for those cases.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it returns one primary recommendation plus a sheltered backup, reports shortages honestly, treats visit_date as intent-only with unverified availability, and performs no booking. Some terms such as 'sheltered backup' and 'editorial suitability' are left as jargon, which slightly blunts the disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the whole definition is a compact set of short sentences with no filler. Some lines are telegraphic to the point of ambiguity ('Requires complete party', 'Return shortages honestly'), which trades clarity for brevity.

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?

This is a complex, nested, open-world recommendation tool with no output schema, so the description should describe what a recommendation looks like. It conveys the recommendation-plus-backup shape and honesty about shortages, but does not explain returned fields, what a 'sheltered backup' concretely is, or how the kidpaths resources surface.

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 only 40%, so the description must carry more weight. It does clarify party completeness, strict filters, and admission-vs-whole-budget semantics, but it never explains the city enum, the party structure (adult cap, child age limits), or how include_kidpaths_resources should be used, leaving material gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and deliverable: recommend one outing plus a distinct sheltered backup, when evidence and constraints allow. That is far more precise than the title or name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like search_family_activities or compare_family_options, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Preconditions and exclusions are stated: complete party required, filters stay strict, no travel-time or whole-outing-budget support, no booking performed. These give clear when-not signals. It never names an alternative tool or tells the agent to use a sibling for exploratory or comparison requests, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral detail beyond that: non-Denver/San Diego cities only cover official-page verified venues (a data-coverage caveat), unknown hard constraints are excluded, and budget means USD admission only. This is meaningful disclosure the annotations do not 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?

Five tight sentences, each carrying a distinct operational rule, with the city scope and the query alternative front-loaded. Dense but not padded; no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description fills in the return-side behavior via next_offset for pagination and the constraint-exclusion rule. It covers prerequisites and budget interpretation well, leaving only the response shape and the 'limit' behavior implicit.

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 only 17%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it explains city coverage differences, the party prerequisites (adults plus every child age), the max_admission_usd semantics as admission-only, and that offset drives pagination via next_offset. Only 'limit' is left undefined, which is a minor gap given the low schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search family records') and enumerates the supported cities, so the agent knows exactly what domain the tool covers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like compare_family_options or plan_family_outing, but the search framing is clear enough to distinguish it from a comparison or planning tool.

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?

Strong conditional guidance: use 'query' for a named venue rather than loading every result, gather adult count and every child age before a budget or age-fit request, and follow next_offset for pagination. It provides clear when-to-use context for parameters but never names a sibling as an alternative path.

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