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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying exactly what kinds of findings the review surfaces and that transport gaps come with suggested modes. It stops short of discussing latency or limits, but those are less critical for a read-only review 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?

The description is detailed yet tightly organized: purpose and return values come first, explicit call triggers follow, and the actionable follow-up closes it. Every sentence earns its place, and the bullet-like trigger list is easy for an agent 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values—and it does, enumerating the categories the review returns. With one parameter, clear annotations, and explicit usage triggers, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: tripId is documented as 'Trip ID to review' in the schema itself. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but with one obvious, fully documented parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Review a trip for completeness and get actionable suggestions.' It then enumerates distinct outputs—missing transport, outdated routes, empty days, unbooked items, missing coordinates—that differentiate it clearly from sibling tools like trip_get or trip_activity_list.

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 explicitly lists when to call the tool: after adding several items, when the user asks to review/optimize/check, before sharing, when asking 'what's missing?', or within 7 days of departure. It also identifies the follow-up action of calling trip_transport_add for gaps, giving concrete routing guidance.

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