create_itinerary

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool polls automatically and takes 30-60 seconds, which is important for timeout expectations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, whether the created itinerary is automatically saved, or any failure‑mode behaviors, so it is only partially transparent.

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 and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the valuable note about automatic polling and duration. It avoids fluff, but it could be slightly more structured by putting the rationale for the polling in a separate clause. Still, it is concise for the amount of information given.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description does not fully capture what the caller receives besides an ID. It also leaves ambiguous whether the itinerary is persisted to the user's trips or whether a subsequent call to `save_itinerary` is required. For a creation tool, this is a notable gap in 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%, meaning all parameters (destination, days, budget, travelers, start_date, preferences) are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It doesn't explain any ordering, defaults, or relationship parameters.

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: 'Create a new travel itinerary for a destination,' a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the return value (itinerary ID) and the auto-polling behavior, which helps distinguish it from retrieval or modification tools like get_itinerary or modify_itinerary, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions, requirements, or context that would help an agent choose between it and `modify_itinerary` or `save_itinerary`. Usage is only implied by the action 'create'.

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