find_layover_itinerary

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 discloses what the tool returns ('itineraries by city, airport, art focus, or duration, with venues, transit notes, and a link') and sets expectations with the '3–6h' window. This goes beyond the schema by adding behavioral context, though it doesn't address edge cases like result limits or availability constraints.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and scope, the second provides concrete usage examples. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned (itineraries, venues, transit notes, link) and supplies ample example queries. It's complete for a simple optional-parameter search tool, though a bit more detail on result ordering or limitations could push it to 5.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving example queries ('4-hour Caravaggio plan', 'Amsterdam 4 hours Schiphol') that illustrate how to combine parameters (city, airport, duration) in practice, going beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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's function: 'Search travel.art's layover-itinerary catalogue' with a specific scope ('short-window (3–6h) art-focused trips between flight connections from major European hub airports'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on layover itineraries rather than events, museum guides, or general trip recommendations.

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 clear usage context through explicit example queries ('Use for queries like...'), which effectively communicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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