openvan-travel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the return format ('sorted table cheapest-first') and 'current prices,' which is context beyond annotations. 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence adds essential output behavior. No redundant 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?

Given the strong annotations and complete schema documentation, the description is adequate. It states the comparison scope, pagination not needed, and the sorted output format. Omission of currency/units is a minor gap but not critical for an agent to use the 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%, with both parameters already well-described (fuel_type enum, country_codes as ISO codes with min/max). The description's mention of 'one fuel type' and '2-10 countries' simply mirrors the schema without adding extra meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'compare,' the resource 'fuel prices,' and the scope 'across 2-10 countries.' It also specifies a single fuel type and the sorted output, which distinguishes it from siblings like find_cheapest_fuel that likely focus on finding one cheapest option.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need to compare a specific fuel type across 2-10 countries, with a sorted result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to, but the constraints ('one fuel type', '2-10 countries') imply the appropriate use 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 indicate a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds interpretive context about the index scale (world average = 100, higher = more expensive), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose the exact return format or any edge-case behavior, so a moderate score 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?

The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the action and immediately provides the interpretation scale. Every phrase is purposeful, achieving high clarity with minimal 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It explains how to interpret the index but does not explicitly state whether the output is a single number, both indices, or a difference. For a simple comparison tool, this ambiguity leaves a gap, so completeness is moderate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (from and to as ISO alpha-2 codes), so the description doesn't need to add much. The description mentions 'between two countries' which loosely maps to the parameters but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states the tool compares food price index between two countries, using a specific verb and resource. It also explains the index scale and meaning, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_fuel_prices. This is a specific and clear purpose.

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 comparing food prices between countries, but it does not provide explicit 'when to use' guidance or exclusions relative to alternatives such as compare_fuel_prices. While the context is apparent from the description, there's no explicit alternative naming or conditions, so it falls at the implied usage level.

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 safety profile is fully covered. The description adds some context (regional scope, route planning) but does not disclose additional behaviors like return format or data source. With annotations providing the core safety info, a score of 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence plus a short usage note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No fluff 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?

The tool is simple with well-documented parameters and strong annotations. The description clearly states the core functionality and provides a use case, making it sufficiently complete for selection and invocation. It does not specify the exact return format, but the purpose 'find the cheapest countries' implies a list of countries, and the lack of an output schema is acceptable for this simplicity.

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 each parameter having a clear description and default. The description text merely mentions 'fuel type' and 'region' which aligns with the schema but adds no extra semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: find the cheapest countries for a given fuel type in a region or worldwide. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('cheapest countries'), and the mention of fuel type and region distinguishes it from siblings like get_fuel_prices or compare_fuel_prices.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context ('Useful for route planning'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_fuel_prices or compare_fuel_prices, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral context: live rates, 150+ currencies, and daily updates, which informs the agent about data coverage and freshness. It does not contradict any 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key constraints (150+ currencies, daily updates). No wasted words; every element 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?

For a simple currency conversion tool with a well-documented schema and strong annotations, the description is adequately complete. It does not specify the exact return format, but given no output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, this is a minor gap. Overall, the tool is well-specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters with descriptions (from, to, amount). The description itself does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so a 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 clearly states the action 'Convert an amount between two currencies' with scope (live rates, 150+ currencies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on fuel prices, events, and weather, none of which handle currency conversion.

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 when to use the tool (when currency conversion is needed) and provides context about live rates and daily updates. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but since no sibling tool offers similar functionality, the usage context is clear and unambiguous.

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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds little beyond purpose; it does not disclose return format, error handling, or locale behavior, but this is partially mitigated by the strong 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys purpose and key parameter with zero unnecessary words. It is a model of concision.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and a clear purpose, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention the optional locale parameter, and without an output schema, the phrase 'full details' is vague about return structure. These are minor gaps for such a straightforward operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (only slug is described). The description reinforces slug as the lookup key but adds no new meaning for either parameter. The locale parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('full details for a single vanlife event') and scope ('by its slug'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_events. It unambiguously identifies what the tool does.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you need full details for one specific event identified by slug. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools and the 'single' wording provide clear usage context.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral distinction between a detailed single-country result and a summary list, which is useful, but it does not disclose other traits like 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?

The description is two short sentences that front-load the core purpose, then immediately cover both usage modes. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy 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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers both invocation patterns. It explains what the agent can expect (detail vs summary), though it does not specify exact return fields or data format, which would be helpful but not essential given the simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents country_code and its behavior when omitted (returns all countries). The description goes further by indicating that providing a code yields 'detail' while omitting gives a 'summary list', adding richer meaning beyond the schema's basic description.

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 retrieves current retail fuel prices for multiple fuel types across 125+ countries. It specifies a distinct verb+resource+scope, and its focus on raw current prices differentiates it from siblings like compare_fuel_prices and find_cheapest_fuel.

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 explains how to use the optional country_code parameter ('pass' vs 'omit') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over sibling alternatives such as compare_fuel_prices or find_cheapest_fuel. Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose rather than stated with exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context by specifying 'details' and 'one country,' but it does not disclose significant behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It efficiently communicates the tool's action, resource, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, strong annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves 'details' undefined. It could be more complete by hinting at what data fields are returned, especially since the title only says 'Get Food Price Index.'

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully describes 'country_code' with an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 definition, giving 100% coverage. The description only restates the single-country scope and adds no new parameter-specific meaning, so 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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('VanBasket food price index details') with an explicit scope ('for one country'). This effectively distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'compare_vanbasket', which likely handles multiple countries or comparisons.

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 one country' implies the tool is for single-country lookups, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like 'compare_vanbasket' or provide any exclusion criteria. Usage context is only implied, not directly stated.

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?

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing what the score contains (e.g., solar yield, condensation risk) and that it provides a 7-day forecast, which goes beyond the 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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the key output metric (0-100 score) and lists the important sub-scores and the 7-day forecast. No redundant words or restatements.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and robust annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the score is, what factors are considered, and the forecast component. It is complete for an agent to decide to invoke and understand the outcome.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides a full description for the single parameter country_code (ISO code, maxLength 2). The description reiterates 'for a country' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a 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 clearly states the tool's function: getting a VanSky weather suitability score for a country, with a specific scale (0-100) and enumerated components (van_score, sleep_score, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are weather-related.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: it is for accessing a weather suitability score for vanlife in a specified country. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given no weather-related siblings exist and the tool is straightforward, this is sufficient.

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 description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds context about event categories and filter dimensions, but does not disclose additional safety concerns or edge cases. It is consistent with annotations, so no 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by filter options. No wasted words, all content relevant.

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 a simple list operation with a rich schema and safety annotations. The description conveys the scope and filter options; it could mention default limit/locale or that it returns only upcoming by default, but the schema covers these. Overall it is adequate for agent selection and 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 covers 5/6 parameters with descriptions (83%). The description restates the main filter fields (status, type, country, search) but adds no new syntax or constraints 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 action ('List') and resource ('vanlife events'), with concrete categories (expos, festivals, meetups, forums, road trips). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_event' which retrieves a single event.

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?

Implies usage via filtering options, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_event' for single-event retrieval or 'search_stories' for other content. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the time-sensitive 'today' aspect, which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits or how the score is computed. 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, target, and time context with zero waste.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and implied output (list of countries). A minor gap is the lack of explanation about what the suitability score is, but this is not essential for the tool's usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully documents the 'limit' parameter with a default, range, and description. The description's 'top N' aligns with the parameter but adds no new semantic 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('top N countries'), and the criterion ('highest VanSky van-travel suitability score today'). This distinguishes the tool from siblings focused on fuel prices, weather, or events.

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 context ('today') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vansky_weather or compare_fuel_prices. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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 readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description adds useful context about the aggregated nature and language coverage. It does not elaborate on result ordering or pagination, but the schema provides limit constraints. The added source count and language range provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 conveys the verb, resource, and key attributes. Every word adds value; there is no fluff 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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It communicates the data scope (languages, sources) and filter options. It does not specify what happens with no search query or how results are sorted, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the schema's defaults.

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 lists four filter fields (query, category, country, locale) but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. Since schema coverage is 60% and the remaining params (limit, locale) have self-describing enums/defaults, the description's redundancy does not substantially deepen understanding. It omits mention of the limit parameter, but the schema covers it well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Search') and resource ('aggregated vanlife news stories'), with specific scope ('7 languages, 400+ sources'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fuel_prices or list_events, which target different domains.

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 use case: finding vanlife news by various filters. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is the news-search tool. The lack of exclusions is acceptable given its focused scope.

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