get_all_destinations

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read operation, the return format (list with visa status, stay duration, details), and the API key requirement. It does not mention rate limits or performance, but overall is informative for a non-destructive tool.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second details the output, and the third provides usage context and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the output (complete list of countries with details), a prerequisite (Pro plan), and use cases. It lacks explicit mention of potential limitations like pagination or timeout, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('passport', 'lang') well-described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'visa requirements for ALL destinations', and the scope 'from a single passport country at once'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'check_visa_requirement' by emphasizing the bulk, all-destinations nature.

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 provides explicit use cases ('travel planning, building visa maps, comparing access') and a directive ('Use this when the user wants a full overview'). It also mentions the prerequisite 'Requires a Pro plan API key'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools.

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