Plan a ski road trip

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds algorithmic details: nearest-neighbor ordering, minimal backtracking, day allocation, driving estimates, and integration of live conditions and chain-control. No contradictions and significant extra context.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and packs many details efficiently. It could benefit from slight restructuring for readability, but it avoids fluff.

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 complexity, the description covers inputs, algorithm, and outputs. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. Missing are edge cases like insufficient days or empty results, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 67% with clear parameter descriptions for region, days, and pass. The description merely restates 'Args: region (required), days, optional pass' and adds no new semantic meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool plans a multi-stop ski road trip with specific steps: picking top-scoring resorts, ordering by nearest-neighbor, allocating days, estimating driving legs, and incorporating live conditions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_ski_trip which likely handles single destinations.

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 suggests use for multi-stop road trips but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives such as plan_ski_trip or find_powder_trips. No 'when not to use' or condition-based exclusions are provided.

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