Search Wanderlog travel guides

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses auto-pick behavior for free-text destinations, limited alternatives, and fallback alternatives when no guides exist. Does not mention authentication or rate limits, but covers key behaviors.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the response contains based on response_format, including fields and alternative geos. Also provides next step: use wanderlog_get_guide. Complete for a search tool.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the auto-pick logic for destination, the mutual exclusivity of destination/geo_id, and the meaning of alternative_geos and alternative_geos_with_guides fields.

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 'Lists user-written Wanderlog travel guides for a destination' and distinguishes from siblings like wanderlog_search_places and wanderlog_get_guide by specifying the resource and the follow-up action.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this when the user asks for inspiration, an itinerary they can copy, or "what guides exist for X".' Also provides constraints and alternatives: 'Specify exactly one of destination or geo_id' and 'Pass the returned guide_key to wanderlog_get_guide'.

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