get_outing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates the tool returns detailed data but does not explicitly state it is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The absence of any hint about side effects or permissions leaves some ambiguity.

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 purpose and lists included details. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool returns and how to identify the outing. It could mention the implicit read-only nature, but overall adequate.

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%, so the description adds little beyond restating the parameter's purpose. The description mentions 'by its ID' but does not provide additional context like format or constraints beyond the schema's exclusiveMinimum.

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 it retrieves full details of a specific outing by ID, listing included fields like description, conditions, weather, participants, and routes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_route, get_waypoint, and search variants.

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 when you have an outing ID and want complete details. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tool names provide differentiation. No exclusions are needed given the focused purpose.

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