plan_rush_gift

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that it returns everything in one call, including feasibility of arriving on time, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives the usage trigger, the output bundle, and a sibling comparison. Every sentence contributes actionable information, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 output schema exists and the annotations are rich, so the description does not need to restate return structures or safety. It clearly explains the composite nature and the core use case, but it could more fully address how the other sibling tools relate to this one, especially when a user only wants a gift message or pickup option.

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 all 11 parameters already have individual descriptions. The tool description highlights only origin, destination, and minutes_until_meeting as the main triggers, without adding parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific action ('Plans a last-minute gift pickup') and lists the concrete output bundle it returns. It also distinguishes itself from recommend_gifts and implicitly from the single-purpose sibling tools by framing itself as the one-call composite tool.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('whenever the user gives an origin, a destination, and the minutes left before a meeting') and names recommend_gifts as the alternative. However, it does not clarify when an agent should prefer draft_gift_message or find_pickup_options instead, so the routing guidance is not fully complete.

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