Match visas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states output (matches, ranking, timeline, cost, links) and the EU citizen special handling, but does not describe whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. For a matching tool, partial transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Score a user's profile'). Every sentence adds value: first describes core function and output, second adds EU citizen detail. No wasted words.

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 complexity (10 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose and output format. However, it could be more complete by explaining required parameters, error cases, or how optional params influence matching.

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 has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only generically mentions 'user's profile' without explaining how each parameter (e.g., goal, timeline, education) is used or what enum values mean. It fails to add meaning beyond property names.

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: scoring a user's profile against all visa pathways, returning top matches with ranking, timeline, cost, and links. This differentiates it from siblings like transita_visa_details (specific visa details) and transita_compare_visas (comparing specific visas).

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 use for initial visa matching based on a user profile, and mentions EU citizen handling, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., 'Use this for a broad match; use transita_visa_details for a specific visa'). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.

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