get_itinerary

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 only states that the tool retrieves a complete itinerary, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, data sensitivity, rate limits, or any invariants. For a simple read operation this is minimal but insufficient by the rubric's standard.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, but it omits some useful context (e.g., return details) that might have been included without sacrificing brevity.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the agent is left without information about the return format or any behavioral caveats. The phrase 'all details' is vague and does not enumerate what fields or structure will be returned. The description feels incomplete for a tool that should enable correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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 100% (the single parameter itinerary_id is described as 'Itinerary ID to retrieve'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('complete itinerary'), and the phrase 'all details' hints at a distinction from get_itinerary_status. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tool, so it stops short of fully differentiating itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_itinerary_status or list_user_trips, nor any conditions or scenarios that would select this tool. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name.

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