trips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the trip definition and that hand-edited names are kept, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how filtering interacts with the definition (e.g., country filter perhaps overrides the 100km rule), or behavior like default limits beyond 'Default 40' in schema.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the most important usage info (newest first, fields), then the trip definition. It is compact, though it could be tighter by omitting the list of fields already implied by output.

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 7-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is average. It defines 'trip' and indicates hand-edited names, but doesn't clarify relationships with siblings like 'trip' or 'stays', nor what happens when filters conflict with the trip definition. Enough to select the tool, but gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaningful context: 'newest first', the trip definition (outside country or >100 km) that underpins 'min_nights' and filters, and the note about hand-edited names. This exceeds the baseline.

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 says it returns trips with specific fields (name, dates, nights, ...) and is newest first, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'trip' (singular) partly by being a list, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'stays' or 'travel_stats'.

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 opening line implies a list of all trips with optional filters, but there's no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use'. Given there is a 'trip' sibling, the description doesn't say to use this for listings and 'trip' for a single trip. The mention of an optional people bridge is the only guidance.

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