Bandago Van Rentals

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

With no annotations provided, description carries the full burden and succeeds well: discloses use of 'scheduling engine' accounting for reservations/positioning/consolidation, and details return format (list of rate codes with urgency labels). Could improve by explicitly stating this is read-only/side-effect 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?

Three well-structured sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with the core action. Second sentence provides valuable implementation context (scheduling engine). Third explains output. Appropriately sized for complexity.

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 5 simple parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by describing the return structure (list with urgency labels). No critical gaps for a query tool of this complexity.

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 applies. Description mentions 'specific dates and locations' and 'rate codes' but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., date formats, default behaviors for end_city).

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Check which vehicles are available for rental on specific dates and locations' provides clear verb (check), resource (vehicles), and scope (dates/locations). It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., get_rate_quote focuses on pricing, list_locations lists codes without checking actual availability).

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 implied usage through return value description ('Returns a list of available vehicle types...'), suggesting this is a prerequisite step before booking. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., 'use this before get_rate_quote') or 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 takes on full responsibility. It discloses storing the quote under a token, including a resume link, and a rate limit of 3 per day per address. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or the exact side effect of sending the email (e.g., whether it adds to a sent history).

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 long, with the primary action stated first. Every sentence adds necessary context (token storage, resume link, rate limit) without redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick consumption.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the overall flow but omits mention of return values or confirmation of email delivery. While the action is straightforward, the lack of output guidance leaves some uncertainty about what the agent should expect after invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 13 parameters. The description adds value by explaining how insurance booleans (include_cdw, etc.) pre-select options on the resumed booking page, which goes beyond the schema's 'default false' descriptions. This additional context aids in understanding parameter behavior.

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 verb 'Email' and the resource 'a saved rate quote to a customer'. It differentiates from siblings like get_rate_quote (obtaining the quote) by focusing on the sending action. The inclusion of resume link and booking flow details adds specificity.

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 implies that the quote must already be saved (via get_rate_quote) and mentions a rate limit, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. The sibling list provides context, but explicit guidance is missing.

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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that it reads a centralized policy source, provides authoritative deductibles, limits, benefits, brochure links, online availability, and notes state-specific restrictions (e.g., FL/GA/TX). No contradictions 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?

The description is concise (5 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information or 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (deductibles, limits, benefits, links, availability) and addresses state-specific behavior. While it doesn't detail the exact response structure, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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%, but the tool description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of 'state' (state-correct SLI limits and online availability) and 'location' (resolved to state). This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions, clarifying their relationship and utility.

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 the tool explains Bandago's optional insurance/coverage products (CDW, RLP, SLI, PAI, THE WORKS) with specific details. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by advising to use this instead of quoting from memory, making the verb+resource specific and differentiated.

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 to use this tool instead of quoting coverage details from memory, providing clear context. It also explains when to pass state or location for state-correct information. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with other sibling tools.

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the required authentication/validation (both confirmation number and matching email), the scope of returned data (customer-facing only, no internal notes), and the tool's read-only nature implicitly. However, it does not explicitly declare the tool as read-only or describe error behavior (e.g., what happens when email doesn't match), which prevents a perfect score.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose and requirements. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines purpose and prerequisites, second sentence lists return fields, third sentence gives usage context, and the remaining sentences provide exclusion guidance and sibling differentiation. No fluff or 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (status, vehicle, dates, locations, totals) and what it does not return (internal notes, staff fields). It also sets expectations via the sibling tool distinction. However, it lacks mention of error handling, rate limits, or the fact that the tool requires both parameters to succeed, which would make it more 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, already detailing the 'email' and 'conf_id' fields. The tool description does not add new information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The schema already mentions that email must match and conf_id is the confirmation number. According to the guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), baseline score is 3. The description does not elevate the score by adding extra parameter context.

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: 'Self-service lookup of a customer's own reservation.' It specifies the verb (lookup), resource (customer's own reservation), and explicitly distinguishes it from an admin alternative (lookup_reservation). The description also lists the returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to answer 'what are my dates / where do I pick up / what did I book'.' It also covers when not to use the tool: 'For changing or cancelling, point the customer to the VIP program.' Additionally, it suggests an alternative for admin-level detail: 'use lookup_reservation (admin) for full staff detail.' This is comprehensive and directly addresses selection among sibling tools.

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. Adds valuable context about calculation methodology: Bandago rate engine, DIA (days-in-advance) multipliers, and multi-jurisdiction tax calculations. However, misses opportunity to state this is read-only/nondestructive or that it doesn't create a reservation.

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 dense sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with user value (pricing breakdown components), followed by technical implementation details. Every clause earns its place—first sentence defines outputs, second explains calculation engine.

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?

Compensates well for missing output schema by enumerating expected return components (day rate, insurance, mileage, taxes, grand total). Technical details about rate engine provide appropriate depth for a 9-parameter calculation tool. Would benefit from mentioning if quote is binding or estimated.

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 has 100% description coverage (baseline 3). Description mentions DIA multipliers which loosely contextualizes date parameters, but adds no specific guidance on parameter formats, valid ranges, or interdependencies beyond the schema documentation.

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?

Excellent specificity with 'Get a full pricing breakdown' (verb + resource), and clearly differentiates from siblings like check_availability (binary status) and get_reservation_link (booking action) by detailing specific output components: day rate, insurance, taxes, and grand total.

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?

Implies usage for cost calculation before booking through detailed output specification, but lacks explicit workflow guidance such as when to prefer this over check_availability or that it should be called before get_reservation_link. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance 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 provided, description carries full burden and successfully discloses key behavioral traits: it clarifies this generates a handoff link rather than completing the reservation (customer finishes on website), implies idempotent/read-only behavior (URL generation), and explains the vehicle selection happens externally. Missing explicit mention of link expiration or authentication requirements.

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, zero waste. First sentence establishes core function (generate pre-filled link), second sentence establishes customer workflow completion. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy with schema or name.

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?

Strong given 100% input schema coverage. Description implies return value is a URL via 'Generate a link,' though explicit 'Returns: URL string' would be better given no output schema exists. Covers the handoff workflow sufficiently for a 7-parameter tool with simple flat structure.

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 has 100% description coverage with detailed formats (e.g., '24hr format without colon', '2-letter location code'). Description mentions 'dates and locations pre-filled' which loosely maps to parameters but adds no syntax, validation rules, or cross-parameter dependencies beyond the excellent schema documentation. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'link' with 'dates and locations pre-filled' clarifying scope. Implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_rate_quote (returns pricing data) and check_availability (returns availability status) by describing the handoff-to-website behavior, though it doesn't explicitly name the 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?

Provides implied usage guidance by stating 'The customer will choose their vehicle and complete the booking on the website,' indicating this is for scenarios where the customer completes booking manually. However, lacks explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison to siblings (e.g., 'use this instead of get_rate_quote when you need a booking URL, not pricing').

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully communicates what data is returned (addresses and contact info) and the default filtering behavior (active locations only). However, it omits pagination details, authentication requirements, and exact return structure which would be necessary for full transparency on a read operation.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the verb and resource ('List Bandago rental locations'), immediately clarifying purpose. Second sentence adds the default scope constraint. No redundant phrases or filler content.

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?

Appropriate for a simple list tool with one optional boolean parameter. Description compensates for missing output schema by specifying return content (addresses and contact info). With 100% schema coverage and straightforward functionality, additional elaboration would be unnecessary.

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% (the include_inactive parameter is fully documented in schema). Description mentions 'Returns active locations by default,' which aligns with the parameter's default value but does not add syntax, format, or usage semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the descriptive load.

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?

Excellent specificity: verb 'List' + resource 'Bandago rental locations' + return details 'addresses and contact info'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings (check_availability, get_rate_quote, etc., which concern booking transactions rather than directory listings).

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 implied usage through functional description but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Does not indicate relationship to sibling tools (e.g., whether to call this before check_availability). 'Returns active locations by default' hints at filtering use cases but doesn't constitute explicit usage 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 provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It indicates the operation returns 'specs' (specifications), adding some behavioral context about the payload content. However, it omits details about pagination, caching, output structure, or whether these are static master data versus dynamic values.

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 with zero waste. First sentence defines the action and resource with examples; second sentence provides contextual utility. Every word earns its place without 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?

Given zero input parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate conceptual coverage by identifying what is returned (codes/types with specs) and their business purpose. However, without an output schema, it could have elaborated slightly on the structure or scope of 'specs' to be fully 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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, which per guidelines sets a baseline of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter clarification since there are no inputs to document.

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') and specific resource ('vehicle types/rate codes'), complete with concrete examples ('Ford Transit, Sprimmer') and mentions 'specs'. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like check_availability and list_locations by focusing on vehicle classification codes rather than locations or availability status, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 second sentence explains that codes are 'used to identify vehicle classes for availability and pricing,' implying relevance when working with availability/pricing workflows (relating to siblings check_availability and get_rate_quote). However, it lacks explicit guidance like 'call this first to get valid rate codes' or clear when-not conditions.

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