List Wanderlog trips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the fields returned (title, dates, place count, trip_key), the line format with the [key: ...] suffix, and the extraction instruction an agent needs to chain calls. It leaves out whether results are paginated or whether very large accounts are truncated, which is the main remaining gap for a listing tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope, then the return shape, then the selection guidance — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The final forwarding-email sentence is slightly tangential for a list tool but does route the agent to the right sibling, so it earns most of its place.

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 has a single optional enum parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape — and it does for both concise and detailed modes. Combined with the key-extraction instruction and sibling cross-references, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds the intent behind the enum — concise versus detailed content differences and specifically what you gain from 'detailed' (numeric trip id, forwarding email) and why you'd want the email (importing reservation confirmations). That is meaning beyond the schema's field list, though the field list itself is largely restated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list all trips) plus the scope that matters operationally: owned plus shared-with-you. It also implicitly separates itself from wanderlog_get_trip by noting that this returns the trip_key while get_trip requires it.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use this tool first when the user mentions a trip by name but you don't have its trip_key yet') and names the downstream tools that depend on the key (wanderlog_get_trip, wanderlog_search_places). It also states when to switch to response_format='detailed' and points to wanderlog_get_trip_forwarding_email for the email use case.

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