recommend_art_trip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'no fabrication' and that the recommendation is 'grounded in published data only', which is critical for trust. However, it does not mention side effects or permissions; given it is a read-only recommendation, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and main constraint. The second sentence details outputs and reiterates data integrity. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: events, museum guides, and links. It also addresses the potential concern of data fabrication. For a tool with three parameters (one required) and clear output, this is complete.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions. The description does not add significant additional meaning beyond restating that startDate/endDate filter events. Given 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Recommend an art-tourism trip itinerary'), the resource ('for a specific city'), and a key constraint ('using only travel.art's published content'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools find_art_events and find_museum_guide, which are more focused on individual events or guides.

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 explains what the tool returns (events, museum guides, links) and emphasizes reliance on published data. It implicitly guides usage for full itinerary planning, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives. A clear note on when not to use it (e.g., for single-event lookup) would improve it.

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