Apartments Perlamar · Valencia beach

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing the returned apartment details, but it does not add behavioral context such as error handling for invalid apartment numbers or localization behavior.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned content without filler.

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-only detail tool with complete schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description provides enough context by naming the returned fields. Minor gaps remain around localization and not-found behavior, but they are not critical for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 both the apartment and language parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that exactly one apartment is involved and does not add meaning 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 identifies the resource as a single apartment and enumerates the detail fields returned, which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_apartments. It does not explicitly name or contrast the tool against search_availability or other siblings, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 by 'one apartment' and the detail-oriented content list, suggesting this is for retrieving full details of a known apartment. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_apartments or search_availability.

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, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the data is a snapshot refreshed hourly and capped at 120 days, so the agent knows results may be stale and must be confirmed elsewhere.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the core behavior, scope, and freshness limitation. Every sentence adds value, especially the alternative-tool routing.

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-only availability query with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely complete. It does not describe the return shape, but with no output schema and a straightforward calendar concept, that gap is minor.

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 input schema already documents apartment, from, and days semantics, including defaults and the 120-day maximum. The description reinforces the night-by-night and one-apartment scope but adds little parameter-level detail 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 states a specific resource and scope: night-by-night availability for one apartment over up to 120 days. It also distinguishes the tool from live search and quote tools by naming search_availability and get_quote explicitly.

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 clearly routes live availability and price confirmation to search_availability or get_quote, implying this tool is for snapshot calendar browsing. It does not spell out every when-to-use condition, but the key alternative is explicit.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: nothing about localization (despite a language parameter), no indication of whether the response is one blob or per-topic sections, and no note on link handling for 'links' texts. It is effectively a restatement of scope only.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler and the content list front-loaded. It loses a point because the fragment style (a comma-separated topic dump) has no main clause to anchor what the agent is being told.

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 (one optional param, no output schema), so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, with no output schema at all, the description should at least hint at the shape of the policy response and the fact that output language follows the language argument – neither is 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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'language' and its enum and default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, and notably never signals that results are localized, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is the right ceiling rather than a 4.

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 enumerated topic list (check-in/out, cancellation, payment, pets, house rules, guest registration, extras, contact, FAQ) makes the resource returned unmistakable and clearly separable from the sibling tools, none of which cover policy content. It stops short of a 5 because the description is a bare noun fragment with no verb and no statement of what the tool actually returns (text? links? structured fields?).

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 by the topic enumeration – an agent can infer it should call this for check-in or pet questions – but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of the alternative tools (get_apartment_details, get_quote) and no exclusions. For a purely informational lookup this is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still earns credit by disclosing the return contents and explicitly ruling out side effects ('does not book or hold the dates'). It implies freshness ('live') but doesn't warn that prices/availability can change between calls or note any 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 sentences: the valuable one first (what comes back), then the short scope negation. The parenthetical breakdown is dense with information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 return values and does so concretely (cost components, total, per-rate cancellation terms, booking link). Combined with fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret 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 100% with per-parameter descriptions (date formats, pet limits, defaults, enum languages), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implicitly touches parameters by naming 'nights, pet fee, taxes', which hints at occupants/pets mattering for pricing but adds no syntax 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+resource — 'Exact live quote for one apartment' — and enumerates the payload (price breakdown by component, total, per-rate cancellation policy, pre-filled booking link). This distinguishes it cleanly from get_apartment_details (static info), get_policies (rules), and search_availability (discovery rather than a priced quote).

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?

'Exact live quote for one apartment' plus 'Does not book or hold the dates' establishes context: it's the priced step for a single already-chosen apartment, not a booking action. It stops short of explicitly routing to siblings (e.g., use search_availability first to find a free apartment), so no alternative is named.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the result set is a fixed set of five apartments with their attributes, which is modest but real context beyond the annotations; it says nothing about ordering or whether links are stable.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and ends with the returned fields; no filler, no marketing padding beyond the location string that disambiguates which property this is.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the fields returned (capacity, beds, sea view, terrace, link). Safety is covered by annotations and the parameter by the schema, so the remaining gap is only the missing routing guidance to siblings.

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% and the single 'language' enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default. The description does not mention localisation at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema—baseline 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 names the concrete resource (the five holiday apartments of Apartments Perlamar, with address and beach location) and enumerates the attributes returned, so an agent knows exactly what data this yields. The verb is only implied by the name/title rather than stated in the description, but the scope is 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?

No statement of when to call this versus siblings such as get_apartment_details or search_availability. The natural reading (call this first for the catalogue, then drill down) is inferred, not written, and there is nothing about when this tool is the wrong choice.

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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the search is live, returns total direct-booking price in EUR, and includes a booking link. It does not discuss rate limits, caching, or what happens when no apartments are free.

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, front-loaded with the core search purpose and followed by the key return details. There is no redundant or wasted phrasing.

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 should carry return-value burden; it does explain that the result is free apartments, total price, and a booking link. It leaves gaps around result structure and handling of zero availability, but covers the essential return information.

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 seven parameters are already documented directly in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning, mainly tying dates and guests to the search and noting EUR pricing, without clarifying enum choices or parameter interactions.

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: a live search for apartments that are free for given dates and guests, including price and booking link. It implies a multi-apartment search distinct from siblings like get_quote or list_apartments, but does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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: this is the tool for checking availability and price for a stay. However, it never states when to use it versus get_quote, get_calendar, or list_apartments, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required dates.

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