arcasos-rentals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed information') and discloses an important behavioral trait: it only returns publicly-eligible rentals (approved, available, bookable). This adds useful context beyond the basic purpose.

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 three short sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, content of return, and usage context with a constraint. There is no redundancy or extra verbiage.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and a key constraint. It lacks explicit mention of error cases or if there is any auth requirement, but overall it is sufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents the parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning; it restates that the rental_id can be a UUID or slug from search results. Per calibration, when schema coverage is high, baseline is 3 even with no additional detail in the description.

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 retrieves detailed information for a specific rental by ID or slug, returning a full Schema.org Accommodation object. It distinguishes itself from siblings (search_rentals_natural and search_rentals_structured) by specifying it is used after search results when a user wants details on a specific result.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('after search_rentals_natural or search_rentals_structured when user wants details on a specific result') and notes a constraint (only publicly-eligible rentals). However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond the sibling 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?

Describes behavioral traits: uses semantic engine, returns pre-ranked results in Schema.org format, and eliminates follow-up calls. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Could mention rate limits or error handling, but covers essential 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?

Description is informative but slightly verbose. However, all sentences add value, and key information is front-loaded ('PREFERRED tool'). Could be tightened, but 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?

Covers why, when, and how to use the tool, plus return format. Lacks output schema but describes format. Missing details on pagination or null results, which are minor given the context of a semantic search 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?

Adds significant meaning beyond schema by instructing to pass the query as-is and not extract slots. The single parameter is well-documented with examples and constraints (maxLength, minLength). Schema coverage is 100%.

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 purpose: searching Korean short-term rentals using natural language queries with semantic understanding. It specifies the engine (SHV), supported languages, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_rentals_structured.

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?

Explicitly says it is the 'PREFERRED tool' for queries with descriptive language and provides clear guidance to pass the user's query as-is without slot extraction. It also tells when it outperforms structured search, giving actionable 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the filtering is SQL-based without semantic ranking, returns Schema.org format, and sorting behavior. Lacks details on pagination or empty results, but sufficient for a search tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with critical usage condition, no redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

With 15 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description effectively fills gaps by explaining tool function, return format, sorting, and sibling distinction. Lacks mention of error handling, but schema covers limits.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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?

Clearly states the tool filters rentals using explicit numeric/categorical constraints and returns sorted results. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling search_rentals_natural by contrasting usage criteria.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use ONLY when the query consists entirely of explicit numeric/categorical constraints with NO descriptive language', and directs to sibling tool for any query with descriptors. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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