Aurinia XO — hostel (Kamianets-Podilskyi, Ukraine)

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

Discloses that the tool does not finalize the booking (returns a hold), that consent is one-time (~90 days), and that the stay is confirmed only upon payment. Adds context beyond annotations such as the pending_consent flow and payment_url handling.

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 relatively long but front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides essential workflow details. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation, so the length is justified given the complexity of the consent and payment flow.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the response structure (pending_consent vs hold with payment_url) and the required actions. It covers the entire booking workflow, including consent, payment, and eventual door code delivery via Telegram and list_current_bookings.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds meaning by explaining that promo_code is optional and gives an example (BOT5), and clarifies that dates are for a range. The extra context about consent and identity not being needed adds value over 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 states 'Book beds for a date range at Aurinia XO', specifying the resource (beds) and action (book). It distinguishes from siblings like cancel, get_availability, and list_bookings by focusing on the booking creation process.

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 instructs to not ask for confirmation before calling, to never hand the guest a self-service link, and details when to present a consent link (only if response has pending_consent). Also advises against asking for guest name/contact and explains the retry flow after consent.

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?

Adds detail beyond annotations: immediate action, no confirmation step, return format (booking_id, status, refund), error handling with reason, and consent policy. This fully informs agent 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?

Four focused sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, usage rule, return value/error, and consent. Front-loaded with core action. No 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?

Covers cancellation flow, how to get booking_id, expected output, and consent. With output schema existing and sibling tools providing context, only minor details like reversibility are missing.

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 only parameter booking_id is described as coming from list_current_bookings, which adds context to the 0% schema coverage. However, it does not define the parameter's meaning or format beyond that.

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 action: cancel a hostel booking by its booking_id. Distinguishes from siblings like book (create) and list_current_bookings (list) by focusing on cancellation.

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 strong guidance: use booking_id from list_current_bookings, cancel decisively without re-asking, and consent is already handled. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like handling past bookings, but sufficient for most cases.

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 provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds valuable context: it's read-only, bed-places only, no room types, and explains default behavior for check_out. No contradictions.

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 purpose, and every sentence provides essential information. No redundancy or 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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers main behavioral aspects but omits mention of the 'guests' parameter, which is a minor gap. Overall, fairly 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 description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning for check_out (default behavior) and promo_code (example). However, the 'guests' parameter lacks description in both schema and description, partially compensating.

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 checks dorm bed-place availability and price for a date range at a specific hostel, specifying 'bed-places only, no room types.' It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'book' and 'cancel' by being read-only and for checking.

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 indicates when to use (to check availability) and provides usage details like optional check_out and promo_code. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings, though context makes it 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by noting that cancelled bookings are included and explaining the door_code field lifecycle (null until issued, filled after payment). This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences, each adding unique value. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then nuance, then actionable guidance. No redundant or vague 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?

Despite no parameters, the description covers use case, sorting, inclusion of cancelled bookings, and door_code behavior. With an output schema present, the agent has sufficient context for correct usage.

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, so baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it contributes output field semantics (door_code behavior), which is appropriate given no 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 'list this agent's active/upcoming bookings' with specific criteria (check-out today or later, nearest arrival first). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_past_bookings via the 'active/upcoming' qualifier.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this tool to give the guest their door code when they ask'. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the context implies alternatives like book, cancel, get_availability, and list_past_bookings serve different purposes.

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 mark it as read-only and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral details: cancellation inclusion, status field hint, and pagination behavior (default limit, max, offset). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the main purpose, then add specific details. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers key aspects: scope, sorting, cancellation, pagination. With an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to effectively use this 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters (limit and offset) with defaults and max/min values, adding meaning well beyond the bare 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 specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'past bookings' with a precise definition (check-out before today), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_current_bookings' by focusing on past rather than current.

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?

While the name and scope imply when to use it (for past bookings), the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'list_current_bookings' or provide exclusions.

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