Visa details

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details what the tool returns and mentions that the full checklist is part of a paid action plan, adding transparency. However, it omits potential side effects (likely none) or authentication needs.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool returns, including limitations about the checklist. The presence of sibling tools provides sufficient context for selection.

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 already describes the visa_id parameter with examples. The description reiterates its purpose and usage, adding value by showing how to obtain the id from related tools. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description complements it well.

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 ('fetch full details') and clearly identifies the resource ('single visa pathway') and the specific data included (eligibility, processing time, fees, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like transita_compare_visas by focusing on a single visa.

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 when to use the tool (for detailed information on a single visa pathway) and provides guidance on obtaining the visa_id via transita_match_visas or a resource. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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