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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: results exclude already-planned places, and default scope is the calling user's plan rather than another person's. It says nothing about cost, latency, or result size, which matters for a per-item computation across the wishlist.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the result shape and closed with the recommended action. The first sentence is dense and enumerates return fields that the output schema already covers, but nothing is padded or repetitive in a harmful way.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description frames them helpfully. Scope rules and the purpose of the call are both covered. Minor gap: no note on what happens when a wishlist place has no feasible fit, which is the interesting edge case for this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the default behavior of `person`: the user's own plan is used when it is omitted. That is exactly the semantic an agent needs and it is not in the schema, which only says the value comes from get_trip's people.

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?

Names a specific resource (wishlist places not yet planned) and a specific computation (where each fits: day, nearest activity, travel time, free time). That is far more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with (e.g. get_wishlist vs get_plan), so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'Use it to suggest what to add, and when' gives a clear usage context, and 'The user's plan unless `person` is given' clarifies default scoping. There is no guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives such as get_wishlist or get_plan, and no prerequisites.

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