get_trip_extras

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'View' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, what data format it returns (e.g., list of add-ons with prices), or any rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the implied read-only nature.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action ('View') and lists specific examples of add-ons. It is appropriately sized with zero wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough to convey its basic purpose. However, for a tool that likely requires context like a booked trip or user session, it lacks details on prerequisites or return format, leaving gaps in usability for an AI agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter information is needed, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 with specific verbs ('View') and resources ('available upgrade options, Wi-Fi passes, priority boarding, and other add-ons for your trip'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_booking' or 'get_flight_details', which might also provide trip-related information.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'for your trip', suggesting it should be used when a trip is booked or in progress. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_booking' for general booking info or 'get_flight_details' for flight specifics), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a logged-in session or booking reference.

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