build_trip_link

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers richly. It discloses that nothing is sent anywhere (trip rides in URL fragment, browsers never transmit), that the link is private and editable without an account, and that the tool will not guess locations from names. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs to know for safe use.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with purpose and trigger phrases. However, it is quite long and includes some somewhat verbose stylistic flourishes ('they are theirs, free, and keepable for years') that could be trimmed. The repeated emphasis on coordinates could be consolidated. Still, every major point earns its place.

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 complex tool with nested objects, 2 required params, and 100% schema coverage plus rich behavioral disclosure, the description is thorough. It covers purpose, triggers, privacy/transmission behavior, coordinate requirements, personal-data cautions, and account-free accessibility. No significant gaps given the output is a simple link and schema covers parameters fully.

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 schema already documents all parameters including nested lat/lng/name/mode/lodging fields. The description adds the crucial caveat that coordinates are mandatory and place names must be resolved first, which complements the schema. But nested parameter semantics are already thoroughly self-documented, so the description adds modest marginal value.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Builds a link that opens the whole plan as a private, editable map at its own address.' It captures the trigger scenario ('send me that', 'save this trip'), and the value proposition (no account/card/app). Purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explicitly states WHEN to use ('when someone has planned a trip and needs somewhere real to put it') and gives concrete trigger phrases. It also provides critical usage caveats — supply coordinates first, resolve place names, don't put personal details — and explains the tool fails without coordinates because it can't guess locations. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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