wanderlog-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns itinerary data, supports optional day filtering, and offers two output formats with clear distinctions. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific usage guidelines for format selection, and ends with prerequisite guidance. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, usage, and parameter context. It falls slightly short by not describing the return structure or potential error cases, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. However, it compensates well with clear behavioral guidance for a read-only operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing a strong baseline. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the practical use of parameters: it clarifies that trip_key comes from wanderlog_list_trips, gives examples of day filter formats, and most importantly, explains when to choose 'concise' vs 'detailed' response_format based on user intent, which goes beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('returns the itinerary') and resources ('one Wanderlog trip'), listing exactly what it returns: hotels list, places to visit list, and each day's scheduled places. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wanderlog_list_trips (which finds trip keys) and wanderlog_get_trip_url (which presumably returns a URL rather than itinerary content).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it instructs to call wanderlog_list_trips first if the trip_key is unknown, and it specifies when to use 'concise' versus 'detailed' formats based on user needs (summarizing vs. specific info requests). This covers both prerequisites and format selection criteria.

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