list_user_trips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation lists previously saved trips, which implies a read-only retrieval, but it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or that no mutation occurs. The description is minimally transparent but lacks proactive behavioral detail.

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?

A single, clean sentence that states the exact action and scope with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple list operation with two optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could additionally mention the default limit of 20 or that only authenticated trips are returned, but those details exist in the schema or are obvious, so the coverage is adequate.

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%, so the schema already fully documents 'limit' and 'offset'. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, but per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantic load. The description does not harm or supplement the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('saved trips') scoped to the authenticated user. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like create_itinerary, get_itinerary, or modify_itinerary, which clearly involve different operations.

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 implicitly communicates its purpose but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_itinerary or save_itinerary. It does not state exclusions or the condition for selecting a sibling, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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