tool_check_travel_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the tool's output: required vaccines, recommendations, safety tips. It mentions specific areas (water safety, mosquito risk, altitude sickness, food safety, preparation timeline). It does not explicitly state it is read-only or require authentication, but the content implies a read-only query. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise: two paragraphs with front-loaded purpose, a bullet-style list of covered topics, and a clear parameter description section. Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is logical and efficient.

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?

Given the simple schema (2 params, no nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's scope, parameter details, and behavioral output. It could mention the return format (e.g., text or structured data) or explicitly note it's a read-only operation, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description thoroughly explains both parameters: destination_iso2 can be ISO country code or IATA airport code with examples; trip_duration_days is trip length affecting advice (e.g., malaria prophylaxis). This adds meaning far beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 provides 'Health requirements, vaccine recommendations, and safety tips for a destination.' It lists specific topics (required vaccines, safety tips, etc.) and uses a specific verb 'check' with resource 'travel health'. It distinguishes from siblings like tool_check_visa_requirement and tool_get_travel_advisory by focusing on health-specific information.

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 using this tool for health-related pre-departure information. It lists covered topics and parameter effects (e.g., trip duration affects malaria advice). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling list provides context for alternative tools. A clear usage context is given without exclusions.

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