Trip Planner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses interactive user behaviors (swap, remove, comment, send preferences) and a currency consistency rule. It does not explicitly mention that this is a render-only operation, but the 'Render' verb plus interactive context sufficiently conveys behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information. No fluff or redundant content.

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?

It covers the main purpose, input format, interactive modifications, and a contextual nuance (currency match). While it doesn't explicitly explain the trip_days/destination parameters, the schema already does. For a rendering tool without an output schema, this is sufficiently 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by advising to use the same currency as the trip explorer, which supplements the 'currency' parameter. However, it largely restates the itinerary structure already described in 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Render a day-by-day trip itinerary' with details on content (time slots, locations, costs, budget tracker). It distinguishes itself from sibling render tools by highlighting interactive features like swapping/removing/comments and sending style preferences back to Claude.

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 gives clear context: pass itinerary as a JSON array, and use the same currency as the trip explorer if applicable. It does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but the description's specificity about itinerary rendering implies its primary use case.

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