Mr BnB: reservas en Santiago

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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are capped at 12, sorted by total, and explicitly 'not necessarily the cheapest in the portfolio', which prevents the agent from over-claiming price optimality. It also discloses the returned fields and points to a currency field ('ver moneda') to interpret prices. It stops short of explaining pagination or how the sample is chosen.

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?

Each language version is a tight two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the caveat about result sampling. The full bilingual duplication doubles the payload for no informational gain, which keeps it from being maximally 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields (total price, photo, comuna, capacity, booking link) and delivers the key caveat about result sampling. Gaps: the referenced currency field is never defined, and there is no note on empty-result or date-validation behavior.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in structured form; the description only restates the comuna and bedroom filters. It adds one nuance but also creates mild confusion: it says results are capped at 12 while the limite parameter defaults to 10 and allows up to 20, and the 'moneda' it references is not a parameter at all.

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 definition states a specific verb and resource (search available Mr BnB apartments in Santiago de Chile for a date range) plus the scope-limiting filters (comuna, minimum bedrooms). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names or contrasts the sibling tools cotizar and link_de_reserva, leaving that distinction to the agent.

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 only implied: the mention of a date range and comuna/bedroom filters signals when the tool fits, and the note that results are a sample of up to 12 hints that this is for browsing rather than exhaustive price comparison. There is no explicit 'use X instead when...' guidance covering the siblings cotizar (quote) and link_de_reserva (booking link).

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, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it explains that an unavailable result returns a reason, that the total matches the amount charged at mrbnb.cl, and that it reports minimum stay and booking link.

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 core breakdown is front-loaded, but the same content is then repeated almost verbatim in English, doubling length without adding information. The list of returned fields is exhaustive rather than prioritized.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does so well (nights, nightly price, cleaning, discount, total, payment method, minimum stay, booking link, plus unavailability reason). Only the input-side context and any currency/payment constraints on invocation are thin.

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%, so the four input parameters are already documented. The description adds little about those inputs themselves; its `moneda`, `pago`, and `descuento` references appear to describe result fields rather than the declared parameters, so the 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 names a precise verb+resource (price quote for one apartment and date range) and enumerates the returned components, which distinguishes it from buscar_disponibilidad (availability lookup) and link_de_reserva (booking link only). An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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 only implied: the departamento_id parameter notes it 'viene en buscar_disponibilidad', suggesting a follow-up call after an availability search. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over its siblings or what preconditions must hold.

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, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it checks availability first and explicitly does not book or hold dates, which is important for a link-generation tool adjacent to booking actions.

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 short and front-loads the key action: build the booking link. The bilingual Spanish/English duplication is somewhat redundant, but each language block is concise and no sentence is excessively wordy.

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 complexity, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, prerequisite availability checking, and the crucial limitation that it does not book or hold dates; no output schema exists, but 'builds the link' adequately signals the return.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema, including departamento_id coming from buscar_disponibilidad. The description only repeats that dates and guests are prefilled and does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it builds a booking/payment link for mrbnb.cl with dates and guests prefilled. It also distinguishes itself from a booking tool by explicitly saying it does not book or hold dates, helping separate it from sibling tools like buscar_disponibilidad and cotizar.

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?

It gives clear context: use this to build a prefilled booking link, and it says availability should be checked first. It also clarifies a when-not condition by stating it does not book or hold dates. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or give a full decision rule among them.

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