catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get full details' without disclosing output format, error behavior, permissions, or whether it is read-only beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., mention response), but as is it is efficient for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 is simple (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description provides its basic purpose. However, it lacks information about the return value ('full details' is vague) and error conditions, making it barely adequate.

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 0% with no property descriptions. The description adds only that the id is for an experience, but does not clarify ID format, source, or how to obtain one. Very thin compensation for missing schema info.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('full details of one experience'), and the scope ('by its id'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_experiences and get_offer by being specific to fetch one experience by ID.

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: use this when you have an experience ID and need full details. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives like search_experiences.

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?

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the content of the offer (first 100 bookings free, then 5% commission), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe the return format or any additional behavioral aspects. The description provides some context but not comprehensive transparency.

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 conveys the core purpose and a key detail about the offer. It is reasonably concise, though the phrase 'the cheapest tours marketplace' is a marketing claim that adds no functional information. Still, it does not bloat the description significantly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it explains what the tool returns (operator offer and pricing) and even specifies the pricing structure. It does not mention the response format, but given the simplicity of the tool, the description is fairly complete. A 4 is appropriate for its coverage of essential details.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't—it focuses on the offer details, which is sufficient.

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's function: 'Get 1001locals' operator offer and pricing.' It specifies a particular resource (operator offer) and differentiates it from siblings that deal with experiences, categories, or locations. The verb 'Get' is precise and aligned with the tool's likely read-only nature.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need the operator offer and pricing details. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the absence of parameters and the unique topic (offer/pricing) among siblings, the usage is self-evident. A score of 4 reflects the clear context without an explicit 'when not to 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the tool's informational scope (fields, categories, offer, moderation flow) and its role as a prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but the name and 'call before submit_experience' imply a safe retrieval.

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: the first front-loads purpose and content, the second gives a clear usage instruction. Every clause adds value with no 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells what information is delivered, covers the important aspects, and specifies when to call it. The sibling context is handled with the explicit ordering.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none, but it explains the content the tool provides, which is sufficient.

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 what the tool does: it describes how to add an operator/experience to 1001locals, including required/optional fields, allowed categories, the free-100-then-5% offer, and the moderation flow. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming submit_experience as the subsequent action.

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 an explicit usage directive: 'Call this before submit_experience.' This clearly establishes when to use the tool relative to its sibling, making the workflow unambiguous.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or what the response format looks like. The lack of any such details is a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless list operation.

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 low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. However, it omits any context about the shape of the returned data, potential errors, or differentiation from similar list tools, leaving room for ambiguity in an agent's decision-making.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. There is nothing to explain beyond the empty schema, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 action ('List') on a specific resource ('experience categories') with a scope ('in the 1001locals catalog'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_cities and list_countries by naming the exact entity type.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as search_experiences or get_experience. The description only states what the tool does, not in which scenarios it is preferable.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify output format, ordering, pagination, or authentication. For a simple zero-parameter tool, this basic transparency is acceptable but minimal.

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, concise sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the core functionality. However, it could mention the return format (e.g., list of city names) or clarify if all cities are returned. Given the simplicity, it is mostly 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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate since none exist.

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's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cities') within the '1001locals catalog', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other entities like categories or countries.

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 does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the resource 'cities' makes its purpose clear. Usage is implied (when you need a list of cities), but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the catalog scope adds some context, but it does not disclose ordering, return format, authentication, or potential empty results. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is minimally viable but not rich.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is zero waste.

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 is extremely simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description explains what it does and the catalog scope, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. There is no missing information that would cause confusion.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no further explanation is necessary.

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 uses a clear verb 'List' with a specific resource 'countries' and scope 'available in the 1001locals catalog'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_categories and list_cities, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 context by indicating the catalog scope, which implies when to use it (when you need the catalog's countries). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the simplicity of the tool and distinct sibling names make the usage context 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the search behavior and filter scope but omits details such as pagination, result ordering, limit semantics, or how filters combine. This is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 filler. It efficiently communicates the action, resource, and filtering options.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and filter dimensions. It could benefit from mentioning that results are returned or that limit controls result count, but the current description is serviceable for a low-risk search operation.

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 adds meaning by mapping country, city, category, and query to search dimensions, but it does not mention the limit parameter or provide format/constraint details, leaving a partial gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names the exact resource ('1001locals catalog of local tours & experiences') along with the available filter dimensions (country, city, category, free-text query). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_experience (single item fetch) and list_categories (enumeration).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: searching or filtering the catalog by location, category, or text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the search-focused purpose is distinct from sibling tools, giving reasonable 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the create effect, commission model, moderation, in_review status, no account required, and returns a preview_url. Missing details like idempotency or error handling prevent a 5.

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 sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, creation behavior, commission/moderation, prerequisites, and return value. No fluff; information is front-loaded.

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 complex 13-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: state change, moderation, commercial terms, prerequisites, and return URL. It doesn't describe all parameter defaults or edge cases, but the essentials are present.

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 38%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only mentions 'price' and 'category' lightly. It doesn't explain the semantics of required fields (title, city, name) beyond the schema, nor optional fields like email/phone/image_url, leaving the agent to infer.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource (supplier/operator and experience). It states exactly what the tool accomplishes in one call, which distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call get_submission_schema and list_categories first, providing clear prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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