tool_compare_destinations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output (flight + hotel costs ranked by total cost) but does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or whether it uses real-time data. The lack of behavioral details leaves gaps for mutation or side effects.

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: one line for purpose, one example, then a clear list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, no redundant information. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains all parameters and the output structure (ranked costs). It lacks details on breakdown (e.g., individual flight vs hotel costs) but is sufficient for basic comparison. Behavioral transparency is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining parameter formats: origin as IATA code, destinations as comma-separated codes or city names (with example), date format YYYY-MM-DD, defaults for travelers and currency. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states it compares multiple destinations side-by-side for the same dates, returning flight and hotel costs ranked by total cost. The example 'Paris vs Rome vs Barcelona for next month' clarifies the use case, distinguishing it from siblings like single-city flight or hotel searches.

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 an example use case but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for comparing multiple destinations for a specific trip, but does not mention exclusions or when to choose sibling tools like tool_score_destinations.

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