Get a Wanderlog trip

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses that this is a read operation, that output verbosity is caller-controlled, and that the day parameter narrows scope. It does not mention failure behavior for an unrecognized day string or whether any trip may be inaccessible to the caller, which keeps it short of full transparency.

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 return contents are front-loaded, followed by format guidance and then the prerequisite call, which is a sensible order. The third paragraph slightly repeats the format distinction already implied and adds a sentence an agent may not need on every invocation, but there is no filler prose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what comes back — and it does, listing the three sections and distinguishing concise vs detailed payloads. It stops short of covering empty-trip behavior or invalid day handling, a minor gap for a low-risk read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description does add some meaning the enum text lacks — detailed format also surfaces the numeric trip id and the forwarding email — but it does not explain the day-filter syntax beyond what the schema already states, so the marginal gain is modest.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Returns the itinerary for one Wanderlog trip") and enumerates the payload contents: hotels list, places-to-visit list, and each day's scheduled places. That specificity immediately separates it from wanderlog_list_trips, which only enumerates 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?

It gives explicit routing: use concise format for summarization/Q&A, detailed format when addresses, phone numbers, check-in/out dates, numeric trip id, or forwarding email are needed. It also names the prerequisite step ("If you don't know the trip_key, call wanderlog_list_trips first"), so the agent never has to guess the alternative.

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