Generate Weekend Blindbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the actual selection logic: places visited exactly once within the lookback, filtered by min_stay_hours. That is meaningful behavioral context for a computed/read-only tool, though it never explicitly says the operation is read-only or what permissions/side effects apply.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core outcome and followed by the selection criteria. The 'memory blindbox' metaphor is slightly loose but does not waste space or bury the point.

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 3-param, no-required-arg analytics tool with an output schema handling return format, the description covers purpose, selection algorithm, and trip-recommendation intent. Only the read-only nature and relationship to sibling destination tools are left implicit.

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 car_id, min_stay_hours, and months_lookback. The description restates min_stay_hours and 'lookback period' but adds no syntax, units, or defaulting nuance 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 outcome (find rare one-time destinations visited only once, with a minimum stay) rather than restating the name. An agent can tell it produces surprise weekend-trip candidates, though it never names which sibling (e.g., tesla_top_destinations) it replaces.

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?

Implies usage through 'good candidates for a surprise weekend trip recommendation' and the 'memory blindbox' framing, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or any alternative tool for plain destination lookups. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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