Viatsy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not misleading.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output details (no output schema provided), and with no annotations, it doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or errors. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps for a read operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the slug parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'slug from search_trips results', which provides context but no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full trip overview', specifying what data is retrieved (name, description, duration, currency) and how (by slug). It distinguishes from siblings like search_trips (which searches) and list_destinations (which lists destinations), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct from siblings.

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 implies usage by referencing 'slug from search_trips results', suggesting this tool is used after search_trips to get details for a specific trip. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., if search_trips already provides overview data) or any exclusions. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'Returns published blog posts', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like pagination behavior, sorting order, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no posts are found. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is appropriately concise with two short sentences that directly state the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Browse Viatsy travel guides and articles') and follows with the return value. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavior.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that returns data. It doesn't explain the structure or format of returned blog posts, error conditions, or how results are presented (e.g., list format, metadata included). For a data retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Browse', 'Returns') and resources ('Viatsy travel guides and articles', 'published blog posts'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list_destinations' and 'search_trips' by focusing on blog content rather than trips or destinations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools like 'get_trip_details' that might also return articles.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like browsing general content versus specific searches, or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'search_trips' or 'list_destinations'. There's no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts for use.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists destinations but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether the data is static or dynamic, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured list, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all published destinations') and adds necessary context without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and scope, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does and its scope, but lacks details on behavior, usage guidelines, or output format. For a simple list tool, this might be adequate, but the absence of annotations means more context would be helpful for an agent to use it 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('published destinations', 'Viatsy operates in', 'across Asia'), which isn't covered by the schema. This compensates adequately for the lack of parameters, earning a baseline score above 3.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all published destinations Viatsy operates in'), specifying geographic scope ('countries and sub-destinations across Asia'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_trips' or 'get_trip_details' by focusing on destination listings rather than trip details or search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_blog_articles' beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for trip planning versus general information, or how it differs from 'search_trips' for destination-related queries.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'open group-trip departures' (implying availability) and 'future dates' (time constraint), adding useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 description is concise and well-structured, with two sentences that front-load the core functionality ('Find open group-trip departures with future dates') and follow with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error cases) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving some context gaps for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing filter options ('Filter by destination slug, date range, or max price') but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions (e.g., clarifying 'destination slug' format or 'max price' currency). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Find open group-trip departures') and resources ('departures'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_trip_details' (specific trip) or 'list_destinations' (destinations only). It specifies the scope ('future dates') and type of data ('group-trip departures'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance with concrete examples ('when the user asks "when can I go to X?" or wants to compare dates'), indicating when to use this tool. It also implies alternatives by focusing on 'open group-trip departures,' suggesting other tools (e.g., 'search_trips') might handle different types of trips or searches, though it doesn't name them directly.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a submission/inquiry action (implying a write operation) and establishes prerequisites, but doesn't disclose what happens after submission (confirmation, response time, error handling) or any rate limits. It adds some context beyond the schema but leaves behavioral aspects incomplete.

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 description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. There's zero waste or redundancy, and the most important information (when to use) is appropriately front-loaded.

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 submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by establishing clear prerequisites and purpose. However, it doesn't explain what happens after submission (success confirmation, error responses, or what the user can expect next), which would be valuable given the lack of output schema. The usage guidance compensates somewhat for these gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema properties. It mentions name and email as prerequisites but doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage patterns beyond what the structured schema provides.

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 clearly states the specific action ('submit a quote request') and resource ('for a trip'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_trip_details or search_trips which are read-only operations. It explicitly identifies this as a submission/inquiry tool rather than a retrieval 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Only use after the user has clearly asked for a quote and provided their name and email.' This creates clear prerequisites and context boundaries, telling the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of trips with details), pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), error conditions, or rate limits. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose (search tours to Asia) and lists filter options without redundancy. Every element serves a purpose, and there's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, pagination, and usage context relative to siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must guess behavioral aspects, making this description incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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 high at 86%, with most parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'limit', 'search', 'maxPrice'). The description adds value by summarizing filter types (destination slug, free-text search, duration, price) but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema already covers. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal enhancement over the schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches for tours to specific Asian destinations and lists the available filters (destination slug, free-text search, duration, price). It specifies 'Viatsy tours to Asia' with enumerated countries, making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this search tool from sibling tools like 'get_trip_details' or 'list_destinations' beyond the search functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_trip_details' (for specific trips) or 'list_destinations' (for destination lists). It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Subscribe') but doesn't describe what happens during subscription (e.g., confirmation email, opt-in process, error handling for invalid emails, rate limits, or authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose in conveying the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, subscription ID), error conditions, or side effects. For a subscription tool that likely involves external systems and user data changes, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (email, name, language) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for 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 clearly states the action ('Subscribe') and target resource ('the user to the Viatsy travel newsletter'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling newsletter tools (none are listed among siblings, but in a broader context this distinction might be relevant). The description avoids tautology by specifying what is being subscribed to.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., user consent), when not to use it (e.g., if already subscribed), or how it relates to other tools like 'request_quote' or 'search_trips'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description without explicit context.

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