Cleared / caution / blocked for pet + destination + return_date. NEVER assert clearance without this. (For rules without an account, use customs_check_rules.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pet_id | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes | ||
| return_date | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only hints at a read-only check but does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or authorization requirements. The strong directive focuses on usage rather than 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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a parenthetical note. It front-loads the key outcome and wastes no words, making it quick to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description roughly explains the output ('cleared/caution/blocked') but lacks specifics on return format, error conditions, or parameter constraints like date format. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for an agent.
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 has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'pet + destination + return_date' but adds no detail about pet_id format, destination enum values, or return_date format. This provides minimal added meaning over the parameter names.
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: checking trip readiness status (cleared/caution/blocked) for a given pet, destination, and return date. It distinguishes from sibling tool customs_check_rules by specifying its use case, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 explicit guidance: 'NEVER assert clearance without this' indicates when to use this tool, and 'For rules without an account, use customs_check_rules' offers a clear alternative for a different scenario. This fully addresses when and when-not to use the tool.
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 targets a distinct aspect of pet travel: rules checking, readiness validation, document listing, pet listing, dashboard overview, session prep, signup, and upcoming trips. No overlap in purpose.
All tools start with 'customs_' prefix and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_rules, list_pets, start_signup), providing a predictable and clear naming convention.
8 tools cover the core workflows for pet border requirements and document management without being excessive. The scope feels well-calibrated for the domain.
The set covers key operations: rule checking, readiness, document listing, and signup. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for adding or updating pets or documents after account creation, but core informational queries are fully covered.