tool_plan_itinerary

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only vs destructive, permission requirements, or rate limits. It only states the core functionality without any behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a clear, structured list of arguments. Every line adds value without redundancy.

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?

While parameter descriptions are good, the description lacks information about the output format (no output schema) and does not provide usage context or behavioral details. For a tool with 8 parameters and no nested objects, it is moderately complete but has gaps.

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 0%, but the description compensates by listing all 8 parameters with clear examples and meanings (e.g., 'destination: City and country (e.g., "Paris, France")'). It explains optional parameters and their defaults, adding value beyond the 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 clearly states it generates a data-backed day-by-day itinerary with real activities and weather. The name 'tool_plan_itinerary' aligns perfectly. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'tool_plan_trip_package' which likely plans a full trip package.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'tool_plan_trip_package' or 'tool_optimize_budget'. No when-not-to-use advice or context provided.

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