arcasos-rentals

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

Discloses return content (full Schema.org Accommodation), eligibility filter, quote-only behavior, deposit/breakdown details, and clarifies the agent never initiates payment. No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 detailed and every sentence contributes useful information. Front-loaded with core purpose. Slightly verbose but appropriate given the tool's optional quote behavior and safety note.

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?

No output schema exists, so description explains return value (full Schema.org Accommodation) and optional quote behavior comprehensively. Also covers eligibility and payment safety, making the context complete for an agent.

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 covers parameter format/requirements (100% coverage). Description adds behavioral nuance: quote-only estimate, discount applied, total + breakdown, deposit shown separately, and that dates must be together. This goes beyond the schema, though rental_id is not significantly enhanced.

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?

Clear verb+resource+method: 'Get detailed information for a specific rental by ID or slug.' Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for details on a specific result after search.

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 states when to use: 'Use after search_rentals_natural or search_rentals_structured when user wants details on a specific result.' Also outlines eligibility constraints (approved + available + bookable).

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 it well: it explains the semantic engine, that it returns pre-ranked results in Schema.org Accommodation format in a single call, and that it avoids follow-up calls. It omits any mention of rate limits or result caps, but for a read-only search tool this is a minor gap.

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 six sentences long, but every sentence earns its place: it states preference, explains the engine, gives usage instructions, and clarifies outcomes. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format and the single-call behavior. It could mention response size or how to access full details, but the presence of a sibling detail tool and the search-focused purpose make this sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by emphasizing 'pass AS-IS' and 'do NOT extract slots', which is critical for correct invocation. It also explains the semantic dimensions the query is interpreted by, adding value over the schema's basic type 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 explicitly identifies the tool as a search tool for Korean short-term rentals using natural language, and specifies the proprietary SHV engine. It clearly distinguishes itself from the structured search sibling by being the preferred choice for descriptive queries.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: any query containing mood, style, atmosphere, view, aesthetic, or qualitative descriptors. It also names the alternative (structured slot search) and recommends this tool to minimize latency, while instructing users to pass the query as-is and not extract slots.

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 are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does mention SQL filtering, no semantic ranking, and Schema.org output format, but it contradicts itself by claiming no mood/view words are allowed while the schema exposes mood_tags and view_types. This misrepresentation undermines transparency about the tool's actual capabilities.

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, front-loaded with the critical usage condition, and efficiently communicates key behaviors and alternatives without wasted words.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, alternatives, output format, and key limitations. However, the internal contradiction about mood/view reduces completeness by failing to accurately explain how those parameters fit into the 'structured' paradigm.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema descriptions, and the 'no mood/view' wording conflicts with the schema's mood_tags and view_types parameter descriptions, potentially misleading the agent about when to use those parameters.

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 returns sorted results from an SQL filter and distinguishes it from search_rentals_natural. However, it says 'NO descriptive language (no mood, view...)' while the input schema includes mood_tags and view_types parameters, creating ambiguity about the actual scope of the tool.

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 explicitly says 'Use ONLY when the query consists entirely of explicit numeric/categorical constraints' and directly names the alternative tool for descriptive queries ('use search_rentals_natural instead'). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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