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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are picked from a 'live catalog,' implying dynamic selection and possibly non-deterministic output, which aligns with idempotentHint=false. It also discloses the return structure, giving useful context beyond the structured attributes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, and then gives usage examples. Every word earns its place—no fluff 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?

Given the simple parameter set (all optional, fully described) and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (structured itinerary components) and when to use it. It is complete for the tool's complexity level.

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%, with each parameter (vibe, island, max_budget_per_person) having a clear description. The tool description does not add extra parameter-specific guidance, but the schema fully documents them, 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?

The description clearly states the tool builds a same-day or trip itinerary for a Hawaiian island, listing specific output components (morning activity, lunch spot, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on individual services like restaurants, deals, weather, events, or tours.

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?

Provides concrete example queries that trigger this tool ('plan my day in Oahu', 'what should I do Saturday in Maui', 'family itinerary for Kauai'), making the intended use obvious. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the examples effectively differentiate when to use it versus siblings.

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