Travel Tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot carry: language fallback to English when the requested locale is unavailable, and a CC BY-SA 4.0 attribution obligation when quoting the returned source — a constraint the agent must honor in output.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines output and language behavior, the second states a licensing obligation. The core purpose is front-loaded with no preamble 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so adequately by characterizing it as a short intro text plus a citable source. Minor gaps remain: it does not say what happens when no article exists for the place (empty result vs. error) or how long 'short' is.

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%, so `map`, `place`, and `locale` are all documented in structured fields, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's note about English fallback does clarify `locale` behavior beyond the schema's terse 'default en', but it adds nothing about `map` or `place` selection.

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 a specific verb and resource — retrieve a short introduction to a place — with the language behavior qualified inline. It is clearly distinct from search_places and list_maps in what it returns, though it never names a sibling to reinforce that distinction.

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 only implied: the schema hints that `place` should come from search_places, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no statement of when a caller should prefer search_places first. An agent can infer the lookup-after-search workflow but must do the inferring.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered for free. The description adds that each entry includes a place count, which is genuine return-shape context, but says nothing about ordering, size limits, or what happens with zero maps.

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 sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the supplemental detail (place counts) is attached in a parenthetical where it belongs.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does name the maps plus their place counts. It is adequate for a trivial list call, though an ordering or expected-size hint would fully close the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the call signature, and no parameter documentation is needed beyond the empty 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Travel Tracker maps/checklists') and adds a payload detail — how many places each contains. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_place_intro or search_places, though those clearly operate on places rather than maps.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating maps before drilling into places. There is no explicit 'use this when' framing, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools it might precede.

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?

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declared, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it searches across languages, aliases, and ISO codes, and emphasizes that the returned `name` is the canonical value to use elsewhere. It does not mention ranking, result shape, or rate limits, but it goes beyond the annotations in useful ways.

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 tightly written sentences. The primary capability is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence gives an actionable downstream instruction without repetition 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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and tells the agent what to do with the result. It could say more about the shape of the returned results or ranking, but the core guidance is sufficient for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, map, and limit. The description adds nuance to `query` by mentioning supported languages, aliases, and ISO codes, but it does not separately explain map scoping or limit behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: find places by name. It also clarifies the accepted input forms (language, alias, ISO code) and the exact output value, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_maps, but the search/query nature is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a useful workflow cue by saying to use the returned `name` with other tools. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus list_maps or get_place_intro, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites. 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.