Sorted Travel Docs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, and an output schema covers the return shape. The description adds only the markdown return format, which is modest value on top of what structured fields already provide.

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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the parameter guidance; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated needlessly.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, where the input comes from, and the return format — nothing an agent needs is missing.

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% and the schema's path description repeats the same example slugs (overview, mcp, rest-api, sdks, auth) verbatim, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Load one Sorted Travel documentation page') plus the output format ('as markdown'), which is exactly the distinguishing operation versus the sibling listing and search tools.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: the path must come from search_docs or list_doc_pages, implying a discover-then-fetch workflow and steering users away from guessing paths. It does not state explicit exclusions, but the alternative tools are named.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are public URLs and can be unfiltered (potentially large), but says nothing about pagination or limiting of a full listing.

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 tightly written sentences, no filler, with the resource and return fields front-loaded before the optional-filter note.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the single optional parameter is fully described. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the sibling search_docs, which would make the definition complete.

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 query parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the keyword-filter-over-titles/descriptions/paths behavior without adding format, matching, or case-sensitivity detail.

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 and resource ("List documentation pages") and names the returned fields (path, title, description, public URL), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_docs, which also accepts keyword filtering, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

"Pass query to filter by keyword; omit it to list every page" gives clear parameter-level usage guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_docs or get_doc_page, and no mention of prerequisites or result-size expectations.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the output shape ("ranked excerpts with public URLs"), which tells the agent to expect multiple partial hits rather than a full document. It stops short of saying what happens with zero results or how ranking is derived.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, return shape, then usage routing. The exclusion is placed last where it reads as a boundary rather than burying the primary use case.

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 an output schema present, the return values need not be explained, and the annotations fully cover the safety and idempotency profile, so the description is close to complete for a two-parameter search tool. Minor gaps remain around empty-result behavior and any index coverage limits, which an agent would not know from the structured fields alone.

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% — both query and top_k carry their own descriptions with ranges and examples — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description implies queries are natural-language documentation questions but adds no syntax, format, or tuning guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Search Sorted Travel developer documentation") and scopes it to API, MCP, SDK, auth, and integration questions, plus states the return shape ("ranked excerpts with public URLs"). It never names the siblings get_doc_page or list_doc_pages, so the distinction from "retrieve a single page" or "enumerate pages" is left implicit rather than stated.

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 an explicit use condition ("how-to and reference questions") and an explicit exclusion with the alternative to use instead ("Do not use this tool to rank destinations or check visas — call the product MCP instead"). Both the when and the when-not are stated, which is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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