Upcoming trips from the household's connected travel calendar (TripIt/Flighty/Google/Apple), each with per-pet readiness (cleared/caution/blocked). Use to proactively flag paperwork needed before travel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (connected calendars), output structure (trips with per-pet readiness categories), and purpose. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, data freshness, or pagination. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 efficiently convey the output, data source, readiness categories, and intended use. No wasted words; front-loaded with key 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 no-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what trips are included, readiness status, and usage purpose. Minor omissions like sorting or date range are not critical for this simple 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?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 when there are zero parameters.
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 returns upcoming trips from connected calendars with per-pet readiness statuses (cleared/caution/blocked), and identifies the use case of proactively flagging paperwork. This distinguishes it from siblings like customs_check_trip_readiness (which likely focuses on a single trip) and customs_list_documents.
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 a general use case ('proactively flag paperwork needed before travel') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like customs_check_trip_readiness or customs_list_documents. 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.
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.