trip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the data returned and the identification mechanism, but does not disclose behavior in edge cases (e.g., missing parameters, non-existent slug, multiple matches). It is not misleading, but could be more transparent about failure modes or 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the key output ('One trip in full') and a clear list of contained data. No redundant content; every phrase adds value.

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 absence of an output schema, the description effectively enumerates all major components (day-by-day country/city, stays, journeys with mode/distance, people, note). It also explains how to identify the trip. It could be slightly more explicit about the requirement to provide at least one identifier, but overall it is complete for a retrieval tool.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds beyond the schema by clarifying that the parameters are alternative identifiers ('by slug, by name, or by a date inside it') and elaborates on the date parameter ('any date inside the trip'). This enhances parameter semantics.

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 what the tool does: it retrieves a complete trip with all its details (day-by-day itinerary, stays, journeys, people, note). It uses a specific resource ('One trip') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'trips' (plural list) and 'day' (single day).

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 gives clear identification methods (slug, name, or date) and implies when to use this tool (when you need the full trip details). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'day' or 'stays', so it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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