Travellers Group — Regional Australia Hotels

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true) and adds critical behavioral context: the tool returns a link only, never confirms availability. No contradictions. This fully informs the agent about the tool's safety and non-committal nature.

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 long, front-loads the primary purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While the tool's core function is clear, the lack of an output schema means the description should more thoroughly explain the return format (e.g., is it a URL string or JSON with metadata?). The phrase 'pre-filled booking-engine link' is vague. For a tool with no output schema, this is a gap.

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 only 40%, and the description adds no additional meaning for parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format for dates, constraints for adults/children). The description does not explain the purpose of each parameter or any dependencies between them.

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 'returns a dated, pre-filled booking-engine link' and distinguishes itself from availability-checking tools by noting 'This tool never asserts that dates are available.' The verb 'returns' and resource 'booking-engine link' are specific and unique among 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 provides useful guidance by labeling the tool as a 'Tier A handoff' and explicitly stating it does not assert availability. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like create_enquiry or get_indicative_rates, which would further clarify use 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?

Description adds the condition of requiring guest consent, complementing annotations that indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and routing, no unnecessary words. Every sentence is informative.

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?

Despite complexity (nested object, no output schema, no schema descriptions), the description is minimal and does not cover return values, error handling, or parameter details, leaving significant gaps.

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 0% description coverage for its 4 parameters, and the description only implicitly mentions consent_confirmed via 'requires guest consent'. It fails to explain other parameters like company, contact, or context_summary.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is for corporate-account or group-booking enquiries, routed to the corporate team, distinguishing it from the sibling create_enquiry tool.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (corporate/group bookings) and mentions consent requirement, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond referencing create_enquiry.

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 are present but minimal. The description adds critical behavioral context: it requires the guest's explicit consent to pass details and conversation context to the property. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open world.

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 very concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and a key requirement. No unnecessary words or redundancies. Front-loaded with the action.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 4 required, nested object, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is partially complete. It covers the core functionality and consent but does not explain what happens after sending (e.g., response format, side effects) nor why 'openWorldHint' is true. More context would be helpful.

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 low (33%), but the description adds general context about the consent requirement. However, it does not elaborate on individual parameters like 'dates' or 'party' beyond what the schema provides. The schema already includes descriptions for 'context_summary' and 'consent_confirmed', so the description adds moderate value.

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 verb ('sends') and resource ('booking enquiry') and specifies the types of bookings it handles (groups, crews, blocks, weekly stays, functions). It distinguishes from the sibling 'create_corporate_enquiry' by implication of the name and context.

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 usage for booking enquiries of certain types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'create_corporate_enquiry' or 'check_availability'. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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 the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing data fields. It does not disclose what happens if the account does not exist or other edge cases, and with openWorldHint=false, the description could clarify data completeness.

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, but it is somewhat convoluted ('answer as data') and could be clearer. It is acceptable but not optimally concise.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description should explain what data is returned and how it relates to the corporate account. It mentions key fields but lacks clarity on structure, purpose, and when this tool is appropriate. More context is needed for a complete understanding.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not add parameter-level information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate as no additional detail is needed.

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 indicates the tool provides corporate account data including account, properties, billing, and invoicing details, but it is phrased cryptically ('answer as data') and does not explicitly state the verb 'retrieve' or 'get'. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like create_corporate_enquiry by implying read-only data retrieval.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_corporate_enquiry or check_availability. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for use.

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. The description adds that it 'serves published measured figures only' and mentions a fuzzy destination filter. This provides some behavioral context beyond read-only, but does not cover all aspects (e.g., what happens if property not found, whether it returns distances for all destinations or partial matches).

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 and reasonably concise, listing destination examples. The first sentence is slightly run-on but still clear. It could be more structured (e.g., separate parameter hints), but given the short length, it's effective.

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?

The tool has no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and three undocumented parameters. The description does not explain the return format (e.g., JSON structure, units handling) or what happens with missing data. For a tool of moderate complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 0% description coverage. The description only implies the roles of 'town', 'property', and 'destination' but does not explicitly describe each parameter's constraints or usage. For example, 'town' may be a disambiguator, but this is left implicit. The description insufficiently compensates for the missing schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides measured distances (km, drive/walk minutes) from a property to various destinations (hospitals, mines, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_property or get_town_guide by specifying the output type. However, the verb 'Serves' is less direct than 'Retrieves' or 'Gets', and the exact return format (list vs single) is ambiguous.

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 the tool should be used when distances from a property to specific destinations are needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given sibling tools are mostly unrelated, the context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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 the description adds behavioral detail about verification and date handling, exceeding what annotations alone provide. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks explanation of date range parameters and return structure. It is minimally adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter (town, to_date, from_date). The agent must rely solely on the schema for parameter meaning, which is insufficient.

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 returns verified events for a town and explicitly adds a constraint about explicit dates, distinguishing it from potential siblings that might extrapolate dates. The purpose is specific and well-defined.

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 usage for town events but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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 (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the source of rates, that rates are indicative, and the fallback behavior of returning a booking link when no figure is published.

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-loading the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description explains the output behavior (rates or booking link) and constraints, but lacks details about parameter usage, especially which property is required and how room_type and stay_band affect results. Given no output schema, more parameter guidance would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not elaborate on any parameters (property, room_type, stay_band). The description focuses on overall behavior but offers no per-parameter meaning, failing to compensate for the lack of schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves indicative rate ranges from a specific module, and distinguishes itself by explicitly stating it never returns a quote or estimate. This differentiates it from sibling tools like check_availability or create_enquiry.

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 specifies this is for indicative rates from the published signed rate module only, and that missing figures yield a booking link. While it does not name specific alternative tools, it sets clear boundaries on usage (not for quotes or estimates).

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 openWorldHint=false. The description confirms it's a read operation and lists the data fields but adds no additional behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits. No contradiction 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists the contents of the record. It is not verbose, but could be better front-loaded with the parameter's role. Every word serves a purpose, though the parameter remains undefined.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description lists what data is returned but does not cover return format, error handling, or the meaning of 'parent entity'. It is adequate but leaves gaps in parameter documentation and output expectations.

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 has one parameter 'property' with 0% description coverage (no textual description). The tool description does not explain what the parameter represents (e.g., property ID, name) or its format. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's type constraints.

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 retrieves the canonical entity record for a Travellers Group property, listing specific fields (address, contacts, quick facts, policies, booking URL, parent entity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_room_types or get_events which focus on subset of property data.

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 this is the primary source for comprehensive property details but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., check_availability, get_room_types). No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's note that traveller_context 're-ranks honestly — it never invents inclusions' adds useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, rate limits).

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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with key resource description, followed by a behavioral note. 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?

For a catalogue tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and a behavioral note on re-ranking. Could mention that it returns a list of room types for a specific property, but overall complete.

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 50% (only traveller_context has a description). The description adds value by explaining the response content (occupancy, bedding, etc.) and clarifying traveller_context behavior, but does not elaborate on the 'property' parameter.

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?

Description clearly states 'room catalogue for a property' and lists specific details (occupancy, bedding, amenities, etc.). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_availability' or 'get_indicative_rates'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions traveller_context re-ranking but does not provide use cases or exclusions.

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. The description adds that unbuilt topics return a specific message, which is useful. However, no further behavioral details (e.g., response structure, rate limits) are provided.

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 sentences with no fluff. First sentence introduces the tool's domain, second sentence handles edge case. Efficient and well-structured.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what to expect (guide content or error message). It covers the main behavior but lacks details on return format or pagination.

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 0%. The description lists most enum values for 'topic' but omits 'things-to-do', and provides no explanation of the 'town' parameter. This leaves ambiguity about accepted values 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 it's a 'Town knowledge layer' and lists specific topics, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are about properties and enquiries. The verb is implied by the tool name 'get', and the resource is well-defined.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are unrelated, so confusion is minimal, but the description does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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 set readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. Description adds honesty policy and fallback behavior (naming accommodation category), which is valuable beyond 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 efficient sentences plus a draft note. Front-loaded with key purpose and behavior; 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?

Adequate for a read-only recommendation tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema. However, lacks specification on return format or behavior with empty input.

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 only 33% (only 'need' has description). Description provides examples for 'need' but does not explain 'town' or 'context' parameters, leaving gaps compensated poorly.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides honest matching across the Travellers portfolio, with explicit behavior when no property suits. Distinguishes from siblings like get_property (detail retrieval) and search_content (content search).

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?

Implicit usage context (honest recommendation) but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternatives. Among siblings, no other recommendation tool exists, so distinction is minimal.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds return format details (≤120 word capsules, canonical URLs). No contradictions, but limited additional context beyond 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 with clear action and scope, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key verb 'search' and resource.

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?

Description explains return format and scope, which is essential given no output schema. Lacks pagination or error details, but sufficient for a search tool with good annotations.

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 50%; the description adds domain context but does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches a specific corpus (Travellers Group) and returns ranked answer capsules with URLs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_town_guide by specifying the multi-site scope.

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 searching across six sites but does not explicitly exclude other tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools are not mentioned as alternatives.

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