aloha-fyi-hawaii

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 mentions 'booking links,' hinting at external resources, but does not cover critical aspects like whether this tool requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time data, or involves any destructive actions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Get a suggested full-day itinerary') and includes essential details without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and effective.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output structure but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or how the itinerary is generated. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what the tool returns and its operational constraints would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (island, vibe, area). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it does not explain how parameters affect the itinerary (e.g., how 'vibe' influences activity selection) or provide additional context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('suggested full-day itinerary for a Hawaiian island or area'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on itinerary planning rather than deals, events, or tours. It specifies the output structure ('morning, afternoon, and evening activities with booking links'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 usage for itinerary planning but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_hawaii_deals, search_hawaii_events, or search_hawaii_tours. It provides some context by mentioning 'booking links,' suggesting it might be for planning with booking options, but lacks clear exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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