tool_score_destinations

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 explains the parameters and overall function but does not disclose behavioral details such as scoring methodology, error handling, performance, or whether it requires external data. The description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for a black-box tool.

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, with a clear DIFFERENTIATOR headline and a structured list of arguments. The marketing phrase 'killer tool' is minor fluff but does not detract. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers all parameters but fails to describe the output format (e.g., returns a ranking list, scores, or something else). It also lacks guidance on edge cases (invalid destinations, missing data). This is a notable gap for a tool that produces a ranked result.

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. It does so excellently by providing detailed explanations for each parameter under Args: including format (e.g., comma-separated destinations, YYYY-MM-DD dates, key:weight pairs for weights, enumerated options for weather_pref, optional origin). This adds significant value beyond the raw 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 is a multi-objective destination ranking tool that scores destinations on cost, weather, safety, events, and quality of life. The phrase 'The killer where should I actually go? tool' and the DIFFERENTIATOR label effectively distinguish it from sibling tools like compare_destinations or score_nomad_cities.

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 use for holistic destination comparison with the DIFFERENTIATOR and purpose statement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for specific needs (e.g., if only cost matters). The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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