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?

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the tool being pure preparation with no side effects, but the description goes well past the annotation: it discloses that nothing is sent, that the human must open the link and submit their own contact details, that the owner replies by email, and that there is no commission or payment. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 what the tool does and the human-in-the-loop workflow in a single dense block. Most sentences carry real information, though the closing reassurances (no commission, no payment) are somewhat redundant with 'Rien n'est envoyé' and could be trimmed.

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 by naming the return value (the owner's form link) and explaining the downstream flow. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has essentially everything it needs, though explicit sibling routing is 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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only light context — that dates, travelers and the message are pre-filled into the form — without specifying formats or constraints beyond 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 ('Prépare une demande de contact au propriétaire d'une location') and explicitly ties the rental_id back to 'search_rentals', distinguishing it from that sibling. An agent can tell what this produces (a pre-filled contact form link) 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?

Clearly frames the context of use — preparing a contact request after obtaining an id from search_rentals — and defines what it is NOT for (no firm reservation, no payment, nothing is sent). It does not explicitly compare itself to check_availability_and_price or get_rental_details, so the routing guidance is implied rather than enumerated.

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 cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful behavior: the price semantics differ with and without dates, prices are indicative and must be confirmed by the owner, and each result carries an id plus a site link. It stops short of describing pagination or result-count 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?

Front-loaded with the core scope, then pricing semantics, then return contents and follow-up tools. It is fairly long for a description, and the 'sans commission' phrase is slightly promotional, but every sentence carries usable information.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what results contain, how prices are interpreted, and which tools consume the id. It leaves pagination and result-cardinality behavior implicit, which keeps it just short of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters and baseline is 3. The description adds interpretation beyond the schema by explaining how providing dates changes the meaning of price and how budget_max interacts with the stay-vs-week distinction.

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 ('Recherche des locations de vacances à la montagne en France') and scopes it to direct-owner listings without booking commission. It explicitly names the sibling tools get_rental_details and check_availability_and_price as the follow-up consumers of the returned id, so the agent can distinguish its role from theirs.

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 clear context: dates are recommended because prices become exact and availability is taken into account, whereas without dates only weekly rates are returned. It routes to the sibling tools via the returned id but states no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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