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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses little: 'locally supplied' hints at a curated static dataset but doesn't say whether the tool is read-only, what happens with no results, how results are ranked, or how query and days combine. No return-shape or result-count information is provided.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the domain and filters with no filler. Slight efficiency loss only in that the name mismatch adds ambiguity an agent must resolve.

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 two-optional-parameter search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the domain and filters adequately but omits result behavior (ranking, empty results) and how the two parameters interact. Marginal but with clear gaps for an agent deciding between this and sibling search tools.

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% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the two filter axes ('free-text query and duration') without adding matching behavior, such as whether query and days must both match or how duration is applied.

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?

States a specific verb (Find), resource (itinerary records), and domain (Queenstown and Milford Sound) with the two filter axes. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like search_experiences and get_experience, though the name 'plan_trip' suggests an action while the description describes a lookup, leaving a mild mismatch.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many search-oriented siblings (search_experiences, compare_options, get_experience). The agent must infer that this is the itinerary-lookup tool from the description alone.

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