get_route_visa_rulesVisa rules for every country of a route in one call, for up to 10 passports at once, plus the tightest leg of the route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| weight | No | Vehicle weight class for the vehicle rules. | |
| countries | Yes | Countries in travel order, comma separated ISO alpha-2 codes or slugs, up to 12, e.g. RU,GE,TR. | |
| passports | No | Passports to answer for, comma separated, up to 10, e.g. RU,BY. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It usefully discloses the batching limits and the extra 'tightest leg' output, which are not visible in annotations or schema. It does not define what 'tightest leg' means, but the safety profile is already covered.
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 states the core behavior first and packs the key constraints and extra output into the remainder. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description's high-level return summary is valuable, but it leaves 'tightest leg' undefined and does not mention the vehicle-weight aspect hinted at by the schema. The agent can still invoke the tool correctly using the schema, but the description alone does not give a complete picture.
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 this dimension is at baseline. The description reinforces the passports limit but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, and it does not mention the optional weight parameter, which the schema already documents.
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 that the tool returns visa rules for every country on a route in one call, accepts up to 10 passports, and adds the tightest leg. This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from siblings like check_visa_rules, which appears single-check focused.
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 through 'for every country of a route in one call' and 'up to 10 passports at once', suggesting this is for multi-country and multi-passport route queries. However, it does not explicitly name when to use check_visa_rules instead, nor does it state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources like fuel prices, events, weather, or stories, with no overlap in functionality. For example, compare_fuel_prices and find_cheapest_fuel serve different comparison and search roles, while get_fuel_prices provides detailed data, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_fuel_prices, get_currency_rate, list_events), using snake_case throughout. This predictability aids agents in understanding and selecting tools without confusion from mixed conventions.
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for the vanlife travel domain, covering key areas like fuel, events, weather, and stories. Each tool earns its place by addressing distinct needs, avoiding bloat while providing comprehensive coverage for planning and information retrieval.
The tool set offers strong coverage for vanlife travel, including fuel price comparison, event listings, weather suitability, and story searches, with no dead ends. A minor gap exists in lacking update or delete operations for user-specific data, but core informational and planning workflows are fully supported.