get_itinerary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The explicit 'Read' verb signals a non-mutating operation, and the description clearly states what content is returned. It lacks mention of edge cases or prerequisites, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by a concise summary of what is returned. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage ('Call this first') and return contents. No further detail is needed given the tool's simplicity and available structured data.

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 schema has a single parameter (trip_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description only implies a trip context without explicitly naming or explaining the parameter. Since schema coverage is low, the description should have compensated by mentioning trip_id or its role, but it does not.

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 tool reads the current itinerary for a trip and details its contents (place, days, activities grouped by day). The verb 'read' and resource 'itinerary' distinguish it from sibling mutation 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?

The instruction 'Call this first' provides explicit usage context, positioning this read tool as a preliminary step before modifications. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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