openvan-travel

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive traits. The description adds real value beyond them by stating a privacy boundary — it never identifies the owner or the vehicle's location — and by noting look-alike normalization 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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the core action and then the constraint. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 indicates the return content (validity plus region). It leaves implicit what an invalid plate yields (error vs. false), but is otherwise adequate for a simple, read-only lookup tool whose annotations cover the safety profile.

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 documents locale, number, region, and country including examples. The description only restates normalization and region semantics already present in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 specific verb+resource (validate a plate number) plus outputs (region lookup), and adds a scope boundary (no owner/location). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_license_plate_country, so an agent may still be unsure which plate tool to pick.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. Use is only implied by the verb 'validate', and several sibling tools (get_license_plate_country, get_license_plate_image) leave genuine selection ambiguity unaddressed.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: answers carry a confidence level and a source, and the agent is told to pass those on rather than assert rules as certain. It stops short of describing lookup failure modes or coverage limits.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the scope (passport + destination) and then lists the returned rule dimensions, followed by one short sentence on confidence/source. Nothing is wasted, though the list-heavy phrasing is slightly harder to scan than a clause-per-idea layout.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing what comes back — the rule dimensions plus the confidence/source fields — which is exactly the right content. It is nearly complete for a read-only lookup tool; only edge behavior (unknown passport/zone, partial coverage) is unaddressed.

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%, with enum values documented for plate and weight inside the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only indirect meaning ('temporary vehicle import' maps loosely to plate/weight) and never clarifies the passport/destination code formats beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 names the exact resource (entry rules for one passport + destination) and enumerates the dimensions returned: entry mode, stay length, day counting, visa-run reset, vehicle import. It implicitly separates itself from get_route_visa_rules (route-based) and get_vehicle_import_rules by scoping to a single passport/destination pair, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implied by 'one passport and destination', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling statement (e.g. vs get_route_visa_rules or get_vehicle_import_rules). The only directive is about relaying the confidence level and source to the caller, which is output-handling guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result is a table sorted cheapest-first, and the operation is bounded to 2-10 countries. It does not address data freshness or rate limits.

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, one for scope and one for the return ordering, with nothing redundant. Front-loaded with the action and scope.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return characteristic (sorted cheapest-first table) and the input bounds, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing only minor context like data currency or error behavior when a country lacks data.

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 already documents fuel_type (with enum/default) and country_codes (ISO alpha-2, 2-10). The description only restates the country count and 'one fuel type', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Compare current prices for one fuel type') and pins the scope with 'across 2-10 countries', so the cross-country nature is evident. It does not explicitly name the close siblings get_fuel_prices or find_cheapest_fuel, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 2-10 country constraint implies the multi-country comparison use case, but the description never says when to prefer this over find_cheapest_fuel or get_fuel_prices, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations lack: the index scale (world average = 100) and its directionality (higher = more expensive), which is essential to interpret the result.

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 core action front-loaded and the interpretation convention immediately following. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured fields don't: the index scale and direction. The only minor gap is that it doesn't clarify whether the comparison is directional (from-vs-to ratio) or symmetric.

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% – both 'from' (home country ISO alpha-2) and 'to' (destination ISO alpha-2) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or ordering beyond restating 'two countries', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (compare), resource (food price index) and scope (between two countries), so the agent immediately knows what it does. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_vanbasket (single-country lookup?) or compare_fuel_prices (the parallel fuel-index tool), leaving the choice partly to inference.

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 no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. With siblings such as get_vanbasket and compare_fuel_prices present, an agent gets no explicit signal about when this tool is the right pick over those.

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, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: the result is a range in EUR, broken down per country, and may be flagged as partial when a country on the route lacks data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler; every clause carries information. It is dense rather than wasteful, though the stacked clauses make it slightly harder to scan than a two-sentence split would be.

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 correctly compensates by describing the return shape (EUR range, per-country breakdown, partial-result flag). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though the undefined partial-result semantics could be spelled out further.

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%, including the 2-10 waypoint rule, ordering semantics and the vehicle_class enum, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the element count and says nothing about locale or vehicle_class that the schema does not already cover.

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 ('Estimate toll cost for a road trip') plus the input shape (2-10 place names) and output form (EUR range with per-country breakdown). It is clear and precise, but it never names the obvious sibling get_toll_rates, so an agent must infer whether this is the lookup-table tool or the route estimator.

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 implied rather than stated: the description makes clear this is for multi-stop trips of 2-10 place names, which scopes the tool, but it offers no when-to-use/when-not and no comparison to alternatives such as get_toll_rates.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a purpose hint (route planning) but nothing about how 'cheapest' is ranked, data freshness, or what the country results contain. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the parenthetical scope qualifier appended. No waste, though it is arguably terse for a tool with 3 parameters and an enum of 12 fuel keys.

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?

A read-only query that needs no output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile; schema coverage is complete for all three params. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what the 'cheapest countries' result contains (country names, prices, ranking).

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% and both enums are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the region/fuel-type intent in prose ('a given fuel type in a region (or worldwide)') without adding limits, defaults, or key syntax beyond 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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (cheapest countries for a fuel type in a region), plus scope qualifiers (region or worldwide). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_fuel_prices and compare_fuel_prices, though it never names them explicitly.

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 only usage hint is 'Useful for route planning', which is vague and does not explain when to pick this over the sibling fuel tools (get_fuel_prices, compare_fuel_prices). No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are given.

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, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 48-hour detection window, the 10° size limit, strongest-first ordering, and FRP reported in MW — details an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the source and resource, then layers window, scope, ordering and unit. Nothing is redundant and nothing is missing.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough about returned content (fire detections, strongest first, MW) that an agent needs no further explanation of results. Annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing material is absent.

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 100% and the single bbox parameter is fully documented in the schema, including pattern and an example. The description restates the 10° constraint but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (NASA FIRMS VIIRS satellite fire detections), the data window (last 48 hours), the geographic scope (bounding box up to 10°×10°), the sort order (strongest first), and the unit (FRP in MW). An agent can distinguish this instantly from every travel/fuel/visa sibling.

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 48-hour recency window and the 10°×10° box cap effectively tell the agent when this tool applies and what it cannot cover, but no alternative tool is named or excluded — there simply isn't one in this sibling set. Clear context without explicit routing.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations do not carry: the rate source is live and refreshed daily, and coverage spans 150+ currencies. It does not say what is returned (converted amount, rate, timestamp) or whether rates are indicative.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action ('Convert an amount between two currencies') and appends scope qualifiers. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 three-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers the essentials plus rate freshness. The one gap is that no output schema exists, so the shape of the result (amount, rate, date) is left unspecified.

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 100% – from/to ISO 4217 codes and the amount default of 1 are all documented in the schema. The only extra meaning the description contributes is that valid codes are constrained to 150+ supported currencies, which is a marginal addition over the schema's format guidance. Baseline 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 concrete verb and resource: convert an amount between two currencies. It also bounds scope (150+ currencies, daily rates). No sibling operates in this domain, so there is nothing to differentiate against, but the purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus anything else, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Convert', which is the minimum-viable case.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world). The description adds real value beyond that: each rule returns a verbatim official quote and source link, and a country with no data returns an error that must not be reported as 'nothing is restricted.' This is a meaningful failure-mode disclosure not present in the structured fields.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and its covered domains, then return content, then the error caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so (verbatim quotes, source links) plus error semantics. It is nearly complete; only minor specifics such as locale effect on summaries or result pagination are left implicit.

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 all three params (from, locale, country_code) are already documented with format and semantics (ISO codes, EU exemption, supported locales). The description only echoes 'optionally from a given country,' adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema — baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (customs rules when driving into a country) and enumerates the concrete domains covered: food bans, cash declaration, alcohol/tobacco limits, goods value, fuel canister. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_vehicle_import_rules or get_route_visa_rules, which concern different regulatory areas.

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?

Frames the use case ('when driving into a country') and notes the optional origin country matters for EU-internal travel and origin-based exemptions. It gives clear context but stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling tool or an explicit boundary versus get_vehicle_import_rules.

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, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds only 'full details', implying a complete single-record return, with no mention of auth needs, not-found behavior, or localization effects from locale.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the resource and lookup key front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs trimming.

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?

The tool is simple and richly annotated, so little is required, but with no output schema the description carries the burden of indicating what 'full details' returns and what happens for an unknown slug. It leaves both unaddressed, and the locale parameter's effect is unexplained.

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 50%: slug is documented with a concrete example, but locale is an enum with a default and no description. The description reinforces that slug is the identifying key, adding a little meaning, but says nothing about what locale controls (language of returned details) – a real gap at this coverage level.

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 ('Get'), resource ('vanlife event'), scope ('single'), and lookup key ('by its slug'), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_events. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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: an agent must infer that this tool applies when it already has a slug in hand. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to list_events for slug discovery, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the price-key coverage (gasoline, diesel, LPG, etc.) but says nothing about rate limits, data freshness, units, or currency of the returned prices.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core resource statement, and the invocation rule comes last in a natural place. The enumerated fuel-key list is mildly verbose but earns its place as coverage information.

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 carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it only partially does so — it hints at 'summary list' vs 'in detail' and names price keys but never explains the structure, units, or currency of returned prices. Adequate but with a clear gap for a data-retrieval tool.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented with its ISO format and omit behavior, so baseline is 3. The description's 'one country in detail' phrasing adds a small nuance about response granularity beyond the schema's 'returns all countries', but no real parameter syntax detail.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Current retail fuel prices') and states the scope ('all API-supported countries'), which distinguishes it from the more targeted siblings compare_fuel_prices and find_cheapest_fuel. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully disambiguating.

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?

It gives an explicit conditional: pass country_code for one country in detail, omit it for a summary list. That is clear invocation context, though it never states when to prefer this tool over compare_fuel_prices or find_cheapest_fuel.

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/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the 400-day ceiling and, importantly, that a country without data returns an explicit error which must not be misrepresented as an empty holiday list. That error semantics is the kind of trait an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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, no filler. The resource enumeration is front-loaded and the critical error-handling caveat follows immediately, so the most important constraint is not buried.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, which it does by enumerating the three record kinds and their geographic limits. It omits any indication of response shape or ordering, but for a lookup tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the definition is close to sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond it by tying semantics across parameters: school holidays are often regional (hence region codes), traffic data is France-only, and the period is one country over at most 400 days. That cross-parameter framing adds meaning the schema does not.

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 names the exact resources returned (public holidays, regional school holidays with ISO 3166-2 region codes, and Bison Futé peak traffic days) plus the scoping constraint (one country, up to 400 days). No sibling tool covers holidays, so the resource enumeration alone is enough to separate it. An agent knows precisely what this returns.

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?

It gives clear operational context: single-country scope, 400-day maximum, and the rule to never report a country-level error as 'no holidays'. There are no comparable alternatives among the siblings, so no explicit routing is needed, but the description stops short of stating anything about when not to call it or how to choose among the kind values beyond the schema.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the grouping-by-region output shape, but nothing about data coverage, lookup failures for unknown countries, or localization behavior beyond what the schema enum already shows.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary payload (how the plate looks/reads) before the secondary region-code detail. Slightly dense with parentheticals, but every clause carries content.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape and it does — plate format characteristics plus region codes grouped by region. For a two-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly sufficient; only error/coverage behavior for unsupported countries is unstated.

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%, with country (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2) and locale fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that region codes are country-specific but adds no format or default guidance beyond 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?

States a specific resource (license plate format/region codes for a country) with concrete returnable content: standard, size, format, and region codes grouped by region. The Russian-plate example (77, 199) pins down exactly what 'region code' means, and it is clearly distinct from get_license_plate_image and list_license_plate_countries.

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 — an agent can infer this is a reference lookup for a known country, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' and no routing guidance against siblings like list_license_plate_countries or get_license_plate_image. Nothing is misleading, but nothing steers selection either.

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 cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds return-shape information the annotations cannot: PNG shown inline plus SVG/PNG links, and the custom=true mode. That is meaningful extra context, though it says nothing about size/rate limits or failure modes.

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 the action and output format, with no filler. The parenthetical output detail is efficient, though the custom=true note slightly duplicates the input schema.

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 carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does (inline PNG plus SVG/PNG links), which is the key thing an agent needs. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around input requirements already covered by the schema.

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 already documents country, number, region and custom. The description's 'custom=true draws any text' restates the schema's own parameter description rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Draw a license plate as an image') plus the render target ('exactly as openvan.camp renders it'), so the agent knows this produces a visual artifact. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like check_license_plate or get_license_plate_country, which is the natural source of confusion here.

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 by the purpose: draw a plate when you need an image. The one explicit guidance is the custom=true example (drawing any text such as a name), which is genuine but narrow. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the plate-validation sibling.

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, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real return-content context (that the response includes the data source and a Europe-only CEE17 connector), which helps an agent interpret results but stops short of noting coverage gaps or data freshness limits.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary payload (plug types, voltage, frequency). The stacked parentheticals (IEC A–N, CEE17) make it slightly heavy but every clause earns its place.

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 read-only informational lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names all returned facets and the location constraint on CEE17. It could note the geographic scope of other fields, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% and both parameters are fully documented (ISO country code, locale enum), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase 'for one country' mildly reinforces the country_code input but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource and enumerates exactly what is returned: plug types (IEC A–N), mains voltage, frequency, the value's source, and the CEE17 campsite connector. An agent knows precisely what it gets for a given country 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?

The description never says when to use this tool or what it is distinct from; there are no comparable siblings, but no usage context is given either. It relies entirely on the name to convey intent.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing the batch capacity (up to 10 passports) and the aggregate output ('the tightest leg of the route'). It does not explain what the weight parameter does to the returned rules, which is a minor omission.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs scope, batch capacity, and the extra aggregate output with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 return (rules per country plus the tightest leg). It leaves a small gap in not clarifying why a vehicle-weight parameter exists on a visa-rules tool, but otherwise an agent has enough to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents countries (up to 12), passports (up to 10), and the weight enum. The description reinforces the passport count but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and never mentions the weight parameter — baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (visa rules) with a clear scope modifier (for every country of a route, in one call), which distinguishes it from the sibling check_visa_rules that presumably handles a single country. The differentiation is implicit rather than naming the sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for every country of a route in one call' implies the usage context (multi-country trip planning) and implies the batching advantage over a per-country call, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return content — vehicle classes, vignette durations, concession sections, verification date and source — which is meaningful with no output schema present.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then enumerates content. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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 appropriately characterizes what is returned, including data provenance (verification date and source). It stops short of stating coverage limits (e.g. whether all countries are supported) or locale behavior, but is largely sufficient for a reference lookup.

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 both country_code and locale are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the scoping notion of 'one country' and does not explain the locale parameter's effect, so it stays at the baseline.

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 resource and scope: a toll reference for one country, enumerating the content (per-km rates by vehicle class, vignette prices, concession sections, bridges/tunnels). This differentiates it implicitly from route-based siblings like estimate_route_tolls, though it never names an alternative.

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 single-country scope implies when this lookup is appropriate versus estimate_route_tolls, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the scope phrasing.

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, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the data sources (FCDO, GDACS), the hazard taxonomy, the alert-level scale, and the temporal constraint that this is not a forecast.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the temporal caveat. Every clause carries information (sources, hazards, alert scale); only slight density from the parenthetical list keeps it from being maximally tight.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description names the data sources, the hazard categories, and the alert-level vocabulary, which is enough for an agent to know what comes back. It is read-only and idempotent per annotations, so no further behavioral detail is required for a simple lookup.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema fully documents country_code and locale. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific resource (current country situation) and enumerates exactly what is returned: UK FCDO travel advice level and GDACS natural disasters with green/orange/red alert levels. This is distinctive enough to separate it from siblings like get_holidays, check_visa_rules, or get_active_fires.

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 phrase 'Situation now' and 'Not a forecast' imply a current-conditions use case and exclude forward-looking queries, which is useful scoping. However, it names no alternatives and does not say when to prefer this over siblings such as get_event or check_visa_rules, so usage is only implied.

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, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the single-country scoping constraint and nothing about data freshness, source, or units.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and scope are stated immediately.

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 should say what the index actually returns (basket components, currency, reference period, indexing base). It is adequate for invocation but leaves the agent blind to the result shape.

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 100% and the single country_code parameter is fully documented with its ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format and length constraint. The description's 'for one country' adds only a marginal confirmation of cardinality beyond 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get VanBasket food price index') with a stated scope of one country. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling compare_vanbasket, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative compare_vanbasket. The 'for one country' phrase hints at single-country lookups but never states when this is preferable to the comparison tool.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the returned components (van_score, sleep_score, solar yield, driving conditions, awning safety, condensation risk, 7-day forecast), which matters since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about data freshness, forecast caching, or failure 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource before the parenthetical scale and the return-field list. Dense but every item carries information; nothing is padding.

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 one simple parameter, full annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and enumerates the return payload, which is the main gap the absent output schema leaves. It is nearly sufficient, missing only freshness or error context.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format and an example. The phrase 'for a country' merely restates what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 (Get) and resource (VanSky vanlife weather suitability score) with the 0-100 scale, and enumerates what the score comprises. It is distinguishable from all siblings, which cover fuel, visas, plates and events, though it never explicitly names a contrasting tool because none exists.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus another tool, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The country-scoped purpose is inferable from 'for a country', but the agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it enumerates the rule dimensions returned and explicitly states that unverifiable countries yield an empty result instead of a guess, which prevents the agent from treating a null as a failure.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the one behavioral caveat that matters. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 sketches the return content (days allowed, per-entry vs per-window, carnet, green card) and the empty-result case, so the agent knows what to expect. It stops short of describing response structure or units, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single 'country' parameter is fully documented in the schema (ISO alpha-2, slug, or zone code with examples). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('temporary admission rules for a foreign-plated vehicle in one country') and enumerates the concrete fields it covers: allowed days, per entry or per window, carnet requirement, green card. This clearly separates it from visa-focused siblings such as check_visa_rules and get_route_visa_rules.

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 second sentence gives useful context that an empty result means 'no rule we can stand behind' rather than an error, which implicitly tells the agent how to interpret output. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives (e.g. visa rules vs. vehicle rules) despite a crowded sibling set.

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, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — no default result set size, no note that unfiltered calls default to 'upcoming', no pagination info. It does not contradict 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 compact sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the resource type. The parenthetical examples (Caravan Salon) are nice for disambiguation but slightly decorative.

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 should say something about what is returned (event name, dates, location?) and the default behavior when no filters are passed. As-is, an agent knows how to call it but not quite what it gets back or what the unfiltered default is.

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 83% and the schema already documents type, locale, search, status, and country. The description restates the filter dimensions without adding syntax, defaults, or semantics. For example, 'Filter by status' doesn't convey that the default is 'upcoming' or what 'all' means. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 clear verb + resource ('List vanlife events') and enumerates the event types covered. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_event (single item) and list_vansky_top, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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 this is the tool for browsing/filtering events by listing the filter axes, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. get_event, and no guidance on default status behavior. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the shape of the payload (international code, region count, example plate), which is useful because there is no output schema, but it discloses no behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or ordering. With rich annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the resource (available countries) then lists the returned fields. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields a caller will receive, so the agent knows what to expect. The remaining gap is the lack of any when-to-use guidance relative to get_license_plate_country, but the parameter is fully covered by the schema.

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%: the single optional locale enum is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear resource and scope: it lists countries whose license plates are available and names the fields each entry contains (international code, number of regions, example plate). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_license_plate_country, but the plural/list framing makes the distinction 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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells the agent what data is available, which suggests using it to discover supported countries. It does not state when to call this versus get_license_plate_country or any other sibling, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope context (ranking is computed for 'today', limited to top N), but says nothing about how the suitability score is derived, how ties are broken, or the shape of the result.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the ranking criterion and the 'today' freshness constraint are stated immediately.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. With no output schema, it could still say what each returned country entry contains (e.g., name plus score), which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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%, and the single 'limit' parameter is documented in-schema with default, min, and max. The description's phrase 'top N countries' merely restates that parameter, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (countries), and the ranking criterion (highest VanSky van-travel suitability score today), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as get_vansky_weather, which also concerns VanSky data for a location.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer from the wording alone that this is a discovery/ranking query rather than a lookup for a specific country, which get_vansky_weather presumably covers.

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, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds coverage context (7 languages, 400+ sources) but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or default behavior when no filters are supplied.

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 scope and the filter set front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only, no-required-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient – it names the corpus and the filter dimensions. It stops short of describing result shape or how many/default results come back.

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 60% – search, country, and category are documented in the schema, while limit is only constrained by min/max/default and locale by its enum. The description restates the same four filter dimensions (query, category, country, locale) and omits limit, adding no format or syntax detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (aggregated vanlife news stories) and quantifies scope (7 languages, 400+ sources). No sibling tool in the list covers news search, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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 enumerates the available filters but never states when to use this tool versus anything else, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied by the filter list rather than explained.

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