recommend_art_trip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the recommendation is 'grounded in published data only — no fabrication,' which is a critical trust assurance. It also discloses the return composition (events, museum guides, links). This adds value beyond the schema and addresses potential concerns about hallucination. It doesn't mention side effects, but this is a read-only recommendation tool, so none expected.

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 exactly three sentences: purpose, output contents, and a grounding guarantee. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or filler. This is a model of concise, well-structured tool documentation.

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 a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essentials. It lists what the tool returns (events, museum guides, links) and provides a behavioral guarantee (no fabrication). It could offer more detail on the itinerary structure, but for a recommendation tool, this level of completeness is adequate. The richness of the description compensates for the lack of output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'city' and 'trip dates' but does not add new semantic details beyond what the input schema already provides. For instance, the schema already explains that startDate filters events. The description repeats this without enriching it further, so the score stays at baseline.

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: 'Recommend an art-tourism trip itinerary for a specific city' using specific inputs. It defines the output (events, museum guides, links) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_art_events and find_museum_guide by providing a composite itinerary. The verb 'recommend' and resource 'art-tourism trip itinerary' are specific and unambiguous.

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 establishes a clear usage context: when a user needs a full art-tourism itinerary for a city, including events and museum guides, this tool should be used. It also notes the constraint of using only travel.art's published content. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the 'trip itinerary' phrasing implies it is for broader planning vs. single-purpose tools. This gives clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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