TicketGlide Travel Guides

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it emits a URL rather than executing a search or checking availability, so the agent knows no live data or side effects result. It stops short of describing URL format, validity of inputs, or error 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope constraint. Every sentence carries information, though the category enumeration reads as a loose list rather than integrated guidance.

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 URL-builder with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but leaves real gaps: locale/currency/query semantics are unstated, and the mentioned category list does not match the schema's free-form string parameter, which could mislead.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only meaningfully documents destination ('supported destination ID/name or worldwide') and hints at category values; query, locale (enum), and currency (3-char code) are left completely opaque in both schema and description.

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 and resource: 'Build a TicketGlide website search URL.' The clause 'This does not execute a search or check availability' effectively separates it from the search_guides sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Usage is only implied: the negative statement ('does not execute a search or check availability') tells the agent this is for link construction, not data retrieval, which is the main when-not. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or routing to read_guide/search_guides for actual content.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what the read returns ('source links and factual check dates when present') and what is excluded (drafts, supplier reviews), which is genuine added context.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action and its source tool are front-loaded, and the exclusion is appended as a compact constraint.

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 previews the returned content and scope. Coverage of error behavior (e.g., an unpublished or unknown path) is absent, which is the only notable gap for a simple single-parameter read.

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 0% and the single 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden — and it does, specifying that the path must be a published guide path originating from search_guides. It stops short of giving format or length guidance.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a published guide path') and ties the input to its sibling search_guides, so the agent can tell it apart from that search tool. It does not address the other sibling (create_search_link), but that tool is clearly unrelated.

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?

'Read a published guide path from search_guides' plus 'No drafts or supplier reviews' makes the intended invocation context (post-search, published content only) clear. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative beyond the implied search-then-read chain.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description usefully adds that results come from editorial metadata rather than inventory, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ranking behavior despite limit/offset parameters existing.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the metadata-vs-inventory distinction immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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 four-parameter search tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is thin: an agent knows what it searches but not what it returns or how paging/locale behave. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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% for four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides no parameter-level detail at all — not even what query matches against, or how locale affects results. The only hint is 'editorial metadata', which loosely explains the query domain but not the limit/offset/locale semantics.

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 verb (Find) and resource (published TicketGlide city, attraction and day-trip guides), and the second sentence sharpens the scope to editorial metadata rather than supplier inventory. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling read_guide, but the search-vs-retrieve distinction is inferable.

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 'editorial metadata, not supplier inventory' clause implies when to prefer this over inventory-facing tools, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing is given. read_guide is never named as the follow-up for retrieving a single guide.

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