OiAir activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, and the description usefully adds what the tool does NOT do: it neither submits a request nor reserves or confirms a place. That side-effect clarification is real value beyond 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?

Two sentences, the purpose front-loaded before the caveats, no filler. Slightly dense phrasing ('one exact organization, publication and expected version') costs a bit of readability but nothing is wasted.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The remaining gap is parameter meaning: with 0% schema coverage, an agent gets no explanation of why expectedVersion matters or how the visit enum behaves.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It loosely echoes three required params ('one exact organization, publication and expected version') but never explains expectedVersion's concurrency role, and the 'visit' trial/regular enum is only obliquely referenced via the trial sentence.

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 verb and resource ('Prepare a canonical PT-BR OiAir form link') plus the exact scoping dimensions (organization, publication, expected version), which clearly separates it from generic siblings like get_offering or search_activities. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling, so it misses the top mark.

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 a concrete precondition ('Trial requires that the selected group offers a trial') and explicitly scopes the action out ('opening the link and submitting a request are separate actions'). No alternatives are named, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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 readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: withdrawn, expired, changed-address or stale-version records fail hard rather than falling back to a different record, and published availability may be unknown. It does not say what error or payload the caller gets on failure.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the failure semantics. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing 'Published availability remains unknown' is ambiguous and costs clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the failure/fallback behavior is well covered. The gaps are the undocumented locale parameter and the unclear meaning of 'published availability remains unknown' for a caller deciding whether to trust the result.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains publicationId (the exact identifier) and expectedVersion (optional exact-version assertion) and that a mismatched version fails, but says nothing about the locale enum or how locale affects resolution.

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 verb and scope: read ONE exact, current published item by publication ID, which implicitly separates it from list_offerings and search_activities. The term 'group' is used instead of 'offering', a slight terminology mismatch that could make an agent wonder whether it retrieves the same resource, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch a known publication by ID) rather than stated, and no sibling is named. It does add a real selection rule — pass expectedVersion to require an exact version — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_offerings or search_activities.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that only published facts are exposed and that staff, parent, and participant data are excluded. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or response behavior, but the output schema likely handles returns.

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 wasted words. The key scope and exclusions are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits usage guidance and parameter semantics, and with 0% schema description coverage the locale parameter remains unexplained. It is minimally adequate but has clear 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 there are two parameters. The description never names or explains organizationId or locale, nor does it clarify the effect of the locale enum. It therefore fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: reads the current public organization profile, including address-scoped published groups, prices, and source timestamps. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_offering or list_offerings.

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 states data exclusions ('does not provide staff, parent or participant data') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It implies the tool is for public organization facts, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative selection 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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond that by enumerating what each returned group retains (publication ID, version, schedule, prices, confirmation timestamps) and by warning that an empty result does not authorize substitution.

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 the core action and resource. The second sentence is dense and awkwardly worded ("does not authorize substituting another group"), but nothing is wasted.

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?

Safety behavior is covered by annotations and return content largely by the output schema, so the description doesn't need to carry those. However, with two undocumented parameters and a non-obvious locale filter, the definition leaves an agent without enough to call it precisely.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it never names or explains the organizationId (required, UUID) or locale (enum) parameters. "One public organization at its current address" is an oblique nod to organizationId but adds no format or constraint detail.

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 verb ("List") and resource ("current published groups belonging to one public organization"), which clearly contrasts with the singular get_offering sibling. The terminology ("groups", "at its current address") is idiosyncratic and not tied to the tool name's vocabulary ("offerings"), leaving a slight gap, but the intent is legible.

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?

Usage is implied (list offerings for a given organization) but no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given. The closing caveat about an empty list is a constraint, not selection guidance, so an agent must infer the choice against get_offering or search_activities.

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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: 'Keep unresolved constraints and unknown availability; results do not confirm a place' warns the agent not to over-trust results, which is exactly the kind of insight structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the core verb-resource stated first and constraints following. Sentences are dense and slightly cryptic in places, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one gap is that cursor/limit pagination behavior is never mentioned despite the cursor param existing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain age inclusivity and the Sunday=0..Saturday=6 mapping for days, plus the cross-field grouping rule, but it is silent on query, limit, cursor, locale, price, bounds, period and categories.

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 verb and resource: 'Search OiAir public activities'. An agent knows what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_offerings, which could plausibly be used for a similar browsing goal.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling is named. The semantic notes (age/day matching) describe result interpretation rather than helping the agent choose this tool over the alternatives.

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