Departi – Travel Compliance & Curated Booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying scope (43 countries) and content (treaties, DN regimes, social security) and confirms advisory nature, providing context beyond annotations.

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, highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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 no output schema and 9 parameters with low individual descriptions, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on input expectations, output format, and edge cases, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 only 33% (3 out of 9 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter details or compensate for the low coverage. No explanations of duration, destination, nationality, etc.

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 performs 'Tax residency analysis for 43 countries' with specifics on treaties, DN regimes, and social security. It distinguishes from siblings (visa, accommodation, etc.) and is a specific verb-noun pair.

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 the tool is for tax residency analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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 indicate read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds only that results personalize when registered, which is a mild behavioral trait. No contradictions with annotations.

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 purpose, covering scope and personalization with no wasted words.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description lacks details on return format, error handling, or multiple query scenarios, but covers core function adequately.

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 67% (moderate), and the description does not add further meaning to individual parameters beyond the overview of purposes.

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 it checks visa requirements for 43 European countries across multiple purposes, distinguishing it from tax or Schengen trackers, though not explicitly differentiating from sibling tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like departi_check_tax or departi_track_schengen; context of use is implied but not explicit.

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 the description mainly confirms safety. It adds the requirement for authentication, which is useful but not extensive. No additional behavioral details about rate limits, response format, or consequences are 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?

The description is concise, with a single sentence that begins with the core purpose ('User profile') and then lists contents. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could benefit from a slightly clearer separation of the list items.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic list of what the profile contains. However, it is somewhat vague (e.g., 'compliance summary' could be elaborated) and does not specify the return structure or any pagination/limits. For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter-level details. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description meets that expectation.

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 'User profile' and lists specific contents (preferences, travel history, subscription tier, compliance summary), which gives a precise verb+resource meaning. The sibling tools are all different (check tax, search accommodation, etc.), so this tool is distinctly for retrieving the user's own profile information.

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 mentions 'Requires auth,' which is a key usage guideline. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, the sibling tools have clearly different purposes, so the context implies this tool is for getting user profile data when needed.

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 it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that results are scored by traveler type and include booking links, which is helpful. However, it does not describe geographic scope beyond 'European', potential result limits, or pagination 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?

Single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical detail. It does not explain return format (e.g., array of objects with fields), scoring mechanism, or destination restrictions. Agents need more context to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

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 only 30%, and the tool description does not compensate. It mentions 'scored by traveler type' but provides no additional detail on parameters like destination, checkin/checkout, or how maxPrice interacts with scoring. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 performs accommodation search across European destinations, scored by traveler type, returning booking links. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_experiences or search_transport, though it could be more specific about accommodation types.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_experiences). It does not describe prerequisites, when not to use, or what makes it preferable over other search tools.

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent hints, and non-destructive nature. Description adds that results are matched to traveler personality and returns booking links, enriching the behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Extremely concise two-sentence description that front-loads the purpose and core output. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema, description clarifies returns booking links. Personalization hint added. Could mention pagination or limit behavior, but adequate for the scope.

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 60% with descriptions for persona, categories, traveler_type. Description mentions personalization but does not elaborate on specific parameters or provide additional meaning for limit or destination.

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 it searches for 'Tours, activities, local experiences' and mentions personalization and output (booking links). It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle tax, visa, accommodation, transport, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like accommodation or transport search. The context of 'experiences' is implied but not compared to siblings.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the output includes pricing, stops, and booking links, which is beyond what annotations offer. No contradictions.

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 very short (two sentences) and straight to the point. No redundant information, but could be more structured. Efficient but lacks detail.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits handling of return_date vs one-way, the mode parameter (which includes ground transport), and traveler_type. Does not cover all necessary context for correct 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 low at 57%, but the tool description does not elaborate on any parameter usage (e.g., how mode='all' vs 'flights' works, or date formats). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 flights, with explicit mention of budget and full-service carriers, and what it returns (pricing, stops, booking links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accommodation or experience search.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'Flight search', but does not mention when to prefer it over ground transport or other modes, nor does it provide any prerequisites or exclusions.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'calculator' is consistent. The phrase 'persistent tracking' adds minor context about potential statefulness, but does not contradict annotations. No details on authentication or side effects are 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?

The description is a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too brief for the tool's complexity, lacking detail that could be added without significant verbosity.

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 a complex input schema (5 parameters, including a nested array), no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the calculator, what the output format is, or any edge cases like date formats or nationality impact.

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 description provides zero information about the five parameters (locale, entries, currency, nationality, referenceDate). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining required fields (entries array with country, entryDate, exitDate) or defaults.

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?

Description explicitly states it is a 'Schengen 90/180 calculator with tax residency warnings' and mentions 'persistent tracking'. The title 'Track Schengen Days' reinforces the purpose. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like departure_check_tax or departure_check_visa.

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 use for Schengen day tracking but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternative tools (e.g., check_tax, check_visa). No 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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