Simple China Trip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned content in detail, including recency signalling via 'last-verified date' and the conditional 'Trip.com link (if available)' — useful for judging staleness and completeness of the payload.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence; the core purpose is front-loaded and the enumerated contents each carry distinct meaning. No filler, though the comma-list runs long enough that scanning for a specific field takes effort.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly. It omits failure behavior (e.g., unknown slug) and freshness guarantees, but for a single-param read-only lookup the coverage is close to sufficient.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage) with an example slug. The description only reinforces singular scope ('a specific China attraction') and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 makes clear this returns a booking guide for one specific attraction, enumerated by content type (official channel, passport acceptance, prices, hours, pitfalls, steps, links). It is distinguishable from search_attractions/list_cities, but it is phrased as a content inventory rather than a verb+resource statement, so the 'get' action is inferred 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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The only workflow hint ('slug from search_attractions') lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no explicit routing instruction from the text itself.

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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by describing the returned content (attraction counts and guide page URLs) and confirming the data is scope-limited to one site. It does not mention pagination or result size, which is a minor gap for a listing tool.

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 sentence with zero filler. The scope constraint ('covered by simplechinatrip.com') and the return contents are front-loaded in one pass.

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 no-argument listing tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and returned fields, which is most of what an agent needs. No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and handles it adequately, though result volume or pagination behavior is unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and it does not attempt to introduce any.

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 ('List') and resource ('Chinese cities/regions covered by simplechinatrip.com') and even names the payload fields (attraction counts, guide page URLs). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings get_booking_guide and search_attractions, which operate on bookings and attractions rather than the covered-city index.

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 is implied by the name and content description — an agent can infer this is the discovery entry point before search_attractions. However, the description never states when to use it (or not) relative to the siblings, so guidance is left to inference.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is already covered; the description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields (slug, name, reservation requirement, release rule, page URL) in the absence of an output schema. It does not describe ranking, pagination, or empty-result behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences with no redundancy: purpose and filter dimensions first, then return fields, then the sibling hand-off. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 summarizes return fields, and annotations cover the read-only profile. The remaining gap is result-set behavior (pagination, total counts, ordering) for a search tool that caps at 50 results, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly 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 coverage is 67%: city and query are documented in the schema, and limit is self-explanatory via default/min/max. The description reinforces that the filters are combinable ('and/or') and that keywords work in English or Chinese, which adds modest meaning beyond the schema but no syntax or matching rules.

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 (Search) and resource (China attractions) plus the filtering dimensions (city slug and/or keyword), including that keywords may be English or Chinese. It also names the sibling tool get_booking_guide, so an agent can separate search from booking without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_booking_guide for booking steps, establishing a clear division of labor with that sibling. It does not explicitly mention list_cities as the source of city slugs (only the schema does), and states no when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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