list_travel_advisories

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 explains the scope (all 230 countries), sorting behavior ('risk' and 'updated' are descending), and the risk_level parameter's semantics with labels. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this operation is read-only (which is reasonable given the apparent read nature, but transparency could be higher).

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 concise at three sentences, each providing useful information: purpose, example usage, and sorting options. The structure flows logically from what the tool does, to how to use it, to sorting options. However, the sorting example could be integrated into the purpose to reduce 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 has 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides enough context for an AI agent to understand what it does and how to use it. The naming and example usage help the agent select it over siblings. However, it does not describe the output format, which could be critical for proper usage.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters in detail. The description adds value by explicitly explaining the behavior of sort (descending for 'risk' and 'updated'), providing a concrete example for min_risk_level (value 2), and clarifying risk_level's dual acceptance of numeric and label text. However, the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool lists and filters travel advisories across all 230 destinations, specifying the resource (travel advisories) and action (list and filter). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_travel_advisory' (which likely returns a single advisory) and 'search_countries' (which likely returns countries, not advisories).

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool, including a concrete example ('Use min_risk_level: 2 to find everywhere Canada advises against travel'). It implies when to use alternatives like 'get_travel_advisory' for a single destination but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for specific purposes.

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