Chalet-Montagne.com

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that — the price is explicitly 'toujours indicatif, à confirmer par le propriétaire', the response includes a calendar freshness indicator, and up to 3 alternative free periods are returned on failure. This tells the agent how to interpret and caveat results, though it stops short of stating rate limits or auth needs.

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 core action is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by the enumerated return values, which is a sensible order. The single dense sentence carries a lot, but every clause earns its place — no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing returns: the three availability states, total price plus its indicative caveat, the freshness indicator, and the alternative-period fallback. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description's note that rental_id comes from search_rentals merely repeats the schema text. It adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific compound verb and resource ('vérifie la disponibilité ET le prix d'un séjour daté pour une location') and ties the input to a named sibling ('id renvoyé par search_rentals'). An agent can distinguish this from get_rental_details and search_rentals without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear context for use — a dated stay on an existing rental whose id comes from search_rentals — which implicitly routes the agent away from search_rentals. However, it never states when NOT to use it or contrasts it with get_rental_details, so the alternative-selection guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds non-obvious behavioral facts beyond the annotation: owner coordinates are deliberately withheld and contact must route through the site form. It does not discuss pagination, localization of returned content, or error behavior on an invalid id.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource identity before the field enumeration, and every clause conveys content the agent needs (returned fields, withheld data, contact route). Slightly dense with the parenthetical conditions list, but nothing is filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned sections, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile. Minor gaps remain: it does not state behavior for an unknown/invalid rental_id nor that the locale controls description language in the response.

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 both parameters are self-documented (rental_id pointing at search_rentals results, locale enum). The description confirms the id provenance but adds nothing about the locale parameter or value formats beyond what the schema already supplies. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (detailed record of a rental) and immediately anchors it to the id returned by search_rentals, then enumerates exactly what the record contains (description, capacity/rooms, amenities, rental conditions, reviews, site link). An agent can distinguish this from search_rentals and the other siblings without opening any schema.

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 ties invocation to the output of search_rentals ('identifiée par l'id renvoyé par search_rentals'), which tells the agent this is the follow-up detail call, not a discovery call. It also rules out an expected use case by stating owner contact details are never returned and must go through the site's contact form. No explicit when-not-to-use beyond that.

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 only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes further by disclosing that prices are indicative and must be confirmed with the owner, that there is no booking commission, and that each result carries an id and a site link. These are real behavioral facts beyond the annotation layer, though return format and pagination behavior remain implicit.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then adds price semantics, then the result contract in three dense but non-redundant sentences. No filler, though the text is tightly packed and slightly hard to scan.

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 13-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key business rules and even describes the return payload (id + site link). Combined with a 100%-covered schema, an agent has what it needs; only ordering relative to siblings and pagination are left implicit.

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, but the description adds genuine semantics: budget_max is per week vs per stay depending on whether dates are supplied, dates make prices exact and enable availability checks, and destination ambiguity triggers server-side choices. This materially supplements 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope (recherche de locations de vacances à la montagne en France) and even names the inventory (chalets, appartements, studios, direct-from-owner). It implicitly separates itself from siblings by explaining that results feed get_rental_details and check_availability_and_price, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the conditional semantics of use: without dates prices are weekly, with dates the price is the stay total, and omitting destination searches all areas. It routes onward to two named siblings via the returned id. It stops short of an explicit when-not/ordering statement (e.g. run this before the detail 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?

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that personal data (name, email, optional phone) is transmitted to a third party, that the owner replies directly by email, that there is no commission and no firm booking or payment, and that a 30-character personal message must be co-authored with the user.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the critical confirmation prerequisite immediately after, followed by scope exclusions. The confirmation rule is restated from the schema's user_confirmed description, a minor redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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 14-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: consent prerequisites, third-party data sharing, and the absence of booking/payment semantics. What is not addressed is what the call returns (a success ack? an inquiry id?), though the 'owner replies by email' note mitigates this.

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 every parameter including message min-length and user_confirmed semantics is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes a few of these (message minimum, user_confirmed=true) without adding syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Transmet une demande de contact au propriétaire d'une location') and anchors its input by naming search_rentals as the source of rental_id. It also delimits what it is NOT (no firm booking, no payment), which cleanly separates it from check_availability_and_price.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (obtain the user's confirmation for both the send and the sharing of contact details before calling, then pass user_confirmed=true) and a clear exclusion (this tool does not create a booking or handle payment). It does not, however, route the agent among the other siblings beyond identifying search_rentals as the id source.

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