departi_check_visa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool covers 43 countries and various purposes, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of API limits or response format). No contradiction.

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 sentences and front-loads essential information: what it checks, number of countries, purposes covered, and added context. Every sentence adds value without verbosity.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., visa eligibility, requirements list). For a check tool with 43 countries and multiple purposes, the output details are crucial for agent decision-making. The mention of 'destination context' is vague.

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 67% coverage (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions personalization but does not clarify parameters like locale or currency. The schema already provides adequate details for required 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 that the tool checks visa requirements for 43 European countries and covers multiple purposes (tourist, nomad, work, study, retirement). The name 'departi_check_visa' is self-explanatory, and sibling tools like 'departi_track_schengen' and 'departi_check_tax' are distinct, so purpose 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?

The description implies usage for visa checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are given. The mention of personalization and coverage provides some context, but it lacks clear guidance.

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