get_destinations

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 only implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' but does not mention side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or return format. There is no added context about pagination, rate limits, or data source behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The args section is standard and adds necessary parameter context without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema information beyond the default value, which is already visible in the schema.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema, the description should at least indicate what the list contains (e.g., destination names, IDs) and any caveats like empty results or provider-specific behavior. It does not, leaving some gap for the agent. Still, for a straightforward list endpoint, this is a minimally viable description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: origin_id as 'The ID of the origin location' and provider as 'The booking provider name. Default is bus.' This goes beyond the schema's bare property names and titles, though provider could include allowed values or examples.

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: 'Get a list of available destination locations for a given origin.' The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource 'destination locations' is well-defined with the scoping condition 'for a given origin.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_origins and search_trips.

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 when to use the tool (when you need destinations for a known origin), but it offers no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention that get_origins should be used first to obtain the origin_id, nor does it contrast with search_trips. Usage context is present but not fully articulated.

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