instafan

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the output includes a plan plus links to run it as a group trip on Instafan, and that it draws from 'strongest real places'. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the return-value detail earns its place.

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 low parameter count, complete schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, leaving no major gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'destination' and 'days'. The description adds some conceptual color ('day-by-day', 'strongest real places') but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already contains.

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 a specific verb ('Build'), a specific resource ('a day-by-day itinerary'), and a distinctive source ('its strongest real places'). It also mentions the return value, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like destination_brief, spot_photos, and top_spots.

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 makes the use case clear: generate a multi-day itinerary for a destination. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful content context such as current weather and an official safety verdict. It does not disclose limitations like data freshness, source specifics, or coverage gaps, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded purpose, followed by the value components and usage guidance. No redundant or filler wording.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually, when to use it, and how it relates to itinerary building. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single destination parameter, which already provides the needed semantics and an example. The description doesn't add parameter-level details, and at this coverage level it doesn'ht need to.

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?

States a specific purpose: delivering a short brief on a single destination, with concrete content categories (character, typical weather now, official safety verdict). It also differentiates from a full itinerary, which aligns with sibling build_itinerary.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance: use before or instead of a full itinerary. It does not, however, enumerate when to choose this over find_destinations, spoot_photos, or top_spots, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-state safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns a bounded set of 3-5 destination suggestions. It does not go deeper into response formatting or any limitations, but for a read-only suggestion tool this is adequate.

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 with no filler. The core behavior and example are front-loaded, and the usage context immediately follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with a full schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to produce, gives an example input, and states the decision-relevant usage context relative to other tools.

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 already documents the single 'mood' parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing a rich example ('somewhere warm in November, food-first') that clarifies the parameter can express compound, multi-constraint trips in plain language.

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 action ('Suggest 3-5 destinations'), the input ('trip mood or constraint set'), and provides a concrete example. The phrase 'Use when the traveller has not settled on a place yet' also distinguishes it from sibling tools like destination_brief or top_spots, which are more relevant after a place is chosen.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the traveller has not settled on a place yet. It does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough to route an agent correctly in most cases.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and safe; the description adds concrete behavioral detail: at most two photos shown inline, direct photo links provided, and a postcard fallback when spot is empty. No contradictions with annotations.

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 short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and immediately followed by actionable parameter guidance. No filler or repetition.

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?

With full schema documentation, annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the one non-obvious nuance an agent needs: how an empty spot changes the result. Nothing critical is missing.

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 covers both parameters, and the description enriches them by clarifying that leaving spot empty returns a postcard of the destination and giving a concrete example for spot. This goes beyond the static property 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?

States that the tool returns real photos of a single spot, with up to two shown inline plus direct links, and explains the difference between naming a specific place and leaving spot empty for a destination postcard. This clearly distinguishes it from itinerary, briefing, and discovery siblings.

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 photo-related use and gives parameter-level guidance, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like top_spots or find_destinations. There is no clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use statement.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the guarantee that places are real, Google-rated, and never invented, and that a specific ask overrides the default top-attraction behavior. This is useful and does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the core purpose, default behavior, optional query behavior, and the key authenticity guarantee into a compact space.

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 output schema is present, return values need not be described. The required and optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description adds the crucial behavioral guarantee of real Google-rated places. The definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the optional 'query' param through concrete examples ('specialty coffee', 'rooftop bars') and by implying that 'destination' is the city or place to search within.

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 identifies the resource ('real places in a destination') and differentiates the tool from siblings by emphasizing real, Google-rated, never-invented spots and optional specific asks. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'finds', so the action is implied rather than directly stated.

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 gives clear usage context: use for top attractions by default or for targeted asks such as 'specialty coffee' or 'rooftop bars'. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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