list_trips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns lightweight summaries and only canonical trips, but omits details like ordering, pagination, or error behavior. For a simple list operation this is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the return-type qualifier is included efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and the nature of its output ('lightweight summaries'), but lacks specifics about the return structure (no output schema exists). It also doesn't mention potential volume, sorting, or any operational constraints. For a list tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers all inputs. The description correctly avoids repeating parameter info, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 action (list) and resource (canonical trips), with a scope qualifier ('visible to the configured store'). It further differentiates from siblings like get_trip by specifying 'lightweight trip summaries only,' making the tool's purpose 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 provides context (listing all canonical trips for the store) but does not explicitly say when to use this versus other tools like get_trip or search_places. The distinction is implied by the verb 'list' and the lightweight summary note, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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