Campiamo Campsites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns accommodation types, total price, amount due at checkout, and explains why others fail. This is useful context but does not disclose any further traits like rate limits or pagination.

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 no fluff. The first sentence states the core action and scope, the second details the output and rejection reasons. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description explains the return structure (accommodation types, pricing, due amount, rejection reasons). It does not mention edge cases like no availability or invalid dates, but these are likely covered by the output schema (absent) or typical behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, the description does well to convey the response semantics.

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 fully documents all six parameters. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description offers no extra semantic value.

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 action (check live availability) on a specific resource (one campsite) for a given stay and party, and enumerates the output (accommodation types, prices, reasons for rejection). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_campsite (info), get_quote (pricing), search_campsites (search), and start_booking (booking).

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 usage for checking availability before booking, and lists specific rejection reasons. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_quote or search_campsites, nor any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on alternative selection.

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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's safety burden is low. It adds substantive context by enumerating exactly what data will be returned (accommodation types, payment terms, reviews), which helps agents predict the response shape. 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core promise and then lists contents in a readable sequence. It is efficient and free of fluff, though a bulleted list would improve scannability slightly given the many items enumerated.

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?

Without an output schema, the description thoroughly documents the return value, covering descriptions, photos, check-in times, season, accommodation types with prices and rules, optional extras, booking questions, payment terms, and reviews. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and interpret its result, leaving no critical gaps.

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% and the schema already specifies that 'campsite' is a slug from search_campsites. The description adds only minimal reinforcement that it targets 'one campsite' rather than multiple, which is a marginal semantic improvement over the structured data.

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 'Full details of one campsite' with an explicit verb-implied resource, making it clear this is a read operation for a single campsite's detailed information. The enumerated content (photos, times, prices, reviews) clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_campsites, check_availability, and get_quote, which serve different purposes.

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 use when an agent needs comprehensive details about a specific campsite after obtaining a slug via search_campsites. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining the output includes an itemised breakdown and the amount payable now, which informs the agent about the response nature. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the safety hints.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('itemised price') and then gives the usage context ('before starting the booking'). Every word contributes, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 read-only pricing tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns (itemised price, total, amount payable) and when to use it. No critical information for an agent to call it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'chosen extras' and 'discount or voucher code' which roughly maps to the extras, discount_code, and voucher_code parameters. However, it does not add detailed semantics beyond what parameter descriptions already convey, such as formats or constraints.

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 produces an 'itemised price for one accommodation, stay and party, including chosen extras and any discount or voucher code.' This is a specific verb (get/price), resource (accommodation stay), and scope (with extras and discounts), which distinguishes it from siblings like check_availability (which checks availability) and start_booking (which initiates a booking).

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 it to show the guest the exact total and the amount payable now before starting the booking.' This gives a clear temporal context (before booking) and purpose (show total/payable amount). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from siblings.

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=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it searches both the public directory and every Campiamo-hosted website, and it returns slugs for use with other tools. It also discloses that live availability and total stay price are included when dates are provided, which is beyond the schema. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, and every clause adds information. It efficiently covers what is searched, the filters, the date-dependent behavior, and the return value (slugs) 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?

For a read-only search tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, filters, and the key return value (slugs). It doesn't describe pagination or the exact response structure, but the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) and the mention of slugs make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly. A small gap is the lack of detail on how limit works or what happens with no query, but these are 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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds a little context by grouping filters (free text, country, amenities, dates) and noting that dates enable live availability and total stay price, but it doesn't add meaning for the few undocumented parameters (e.g., limit). Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Find') and resource (campsites, glamping sites, holiday parks using Campiamo), and explicitly lists the search dimensions (free text, country, amenities, dates, live availability, total stay price). It also distinguishes itself by noting it returns slugs for the other tools, which helps differentiate it from siblings like check_availability and get_campsite.

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 implies when to use this tool: when searching for campsites across the Campiamo directory and hosted websites, with optional filters. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list and the mention that it returns slugs for other tools provide context. A clear exclusion or alternative mention would push it to 5.

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?

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: 'Nothing is reserved until the guest pays on that link (valid 24 hours)' clarifies the non-reserving nature, and 'Rate limited' warns of throttling. It also explains that guest name/email are used for confirmation. These details add significant value over the raw annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), which only hint at mutation and unknown side effects but don't specify the actual flow.

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 five sentences and covers purpose, timing, prerequisites, and rate limits in a logical order. It front-loads the main action and then adds constraints. While slightly longer than the minimal ideal, every sentence adds necessary information without fluff or repetition.

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 14 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the essential contextual aspects: when to use, what the output is (a secure checkout link), the fact that nothing is reserved until payment, and the prerequisite to confirm details. It does not describe the exact response format, but the phrase 'get a secure checkout link' implies the primary output. Given the rich schema descriptions, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 93%, so the input schema already documents most parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Number of dogs', 'Arrival date, YYYY-MM-DD'). The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond saying guest name/email are required and used for confirmation, which is already reflected in the schema's required fields. Since the schema carries the burden, a baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start a booking and get a secure checkout link for the guest.' This is a specific verb-resource pair and is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools (check_availability, get_campsite, get_quote, search_campsites) which are all informational. No ambiguity about what action it performs.

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 an explicit condition for use: 'Only works at campsites that take payment online (assistant_can_book is true); elsewhere send the guest to the booking_url to book themselves.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative (directing the guest to the booking URL). It also instructs to 'Confirm every detail with the guest first,' which is a clear prerequisite. 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.