get_trip_history

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 a known upstream failure and warns about server-side errors, which is valuable behavioral transparency. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only status or any additional behavioral details like authentication or pagination.

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: one for purpose and one for the known issue. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a 2-param tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and the critical known-issue warning. It lacks detailed return structure, but the failure warning is arguably more important for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'date range' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's start_date/end_date fields.

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 'Get business trip / field-work records within a date range,' specifying the verb (Get), resource (business trip / field-work records), and scope (date range). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attendance or leave history.

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 context: it retrieves trip records for a date range, implying when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource type is distinct from the sibling tools, so ambiguity is low.

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