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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: first-ever routes can take minutes, the caller should retry after a timeout, flight entry_url appears only when an origin is known, and mode supports drive or transit. This gives the agent realistic expectations about latency and conditional output. No contradiction 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then output details, then parameter formats and latency guidance. Every sentence adds necessary information with no repetition of schema fields or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, it covers the main return values, conditional behavior, and timeout retry guidance. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit resort value format, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly with the information provided.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains origin as city name, IATA code, or lat,lon, and clarifies mode as drive or transit. The resort parameter is implied as the destination but its accepted value format is not explicitly described.

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 what the tool does: plan how to reach a resort by returning arrival airports with drive times and, when an origin is provided, a door-to-door itinerary. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like plan_trip or choose_path, but the specific outputs are clear enough to infer its role.

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 actionable context: origin is optional but changes the output, mode is drive or transit, and timeout handling is explained. It does not explicitly say when to use this over sibling tools, but the conditions under which the tool behaves differently are clearly stated.

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