DayPass

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the returned availability is a live hint and the authoritative status is re-confirmed at checkout. That tells the agent not to treat the result as a booking guarantee. No rate limits or auth requirements are mentioned.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat immediately after. 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, open-world availability check with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what is checked, the date scoping, and the reliability caveat. It stops short of describing the shape of the availability response (e.g. boolean vs. slot list), which would be the only remaining gap.

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 the schema already documents the id pattern, the date formats/relative terms and default, and the locale's localization-only role. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('DayPass experience availability') plus the scoping input (a given date). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_experiences or get_experience, though it never explicitly routes away from the closest alternative, get_quote.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note about re-confirmation at checkout hints this is a pre-booking sanity check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. get_quote for firm pricing/booking status).

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, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: output-data conventions (proper nouns must not be translated, prices are exact and must not be converted or estimated, currency shown as given). It doesn't cover pagination or failure modes, but as a read tool it goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, then usage routing, then output conventions. No filler; the only slight dilution is the density of constraints in the final sentence, but each constraint 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?

Covers purpose, sibling routing, and display/formatting conventions for a read-only detail tool with no output schema. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly; only minor details like error behavior for an invalid id are unaddressed, which is acceptable for this scope.

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 each parameter is already documented, including format hints for date and the localization-only purpose of locale. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema; per the baseline rule, 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 specific verb+resource ('Get full details for one DayPass experience by id') and enumerates the detail categories returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling render_experience, which is the display-oriented counterpart.

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 states when to use this tool ('when you need the details to answer a question') and names the alternative and its condition ('to show the venue to the user, use render_experience'). This is the clearest form of routing 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?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful caveat that the returned price is indicative and that taxes/deposit only appear on the booking page. This is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about caching, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two caveats that matter. No filler 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?

For a six-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential shape of the result (indicative price) and the key limitation (final total elsewhere). Slightly more on what the quote returns would close the remaining gap.

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 six parameters (id, date, kids, adults, children, locale) are already documented in the schema, including relative date terms and defaults. The description only implies 'party on a date' and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Get an indicative price for a party on a date'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like check_availability or get_experience, so it stops short of a 5.

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 call as a pre-booking step and sets a boundary: 'Payment is completed by the user on the DayPass site, never here.' That tells the agent this is not the transactional path, though it never explicitly points to a sibling tool as the alternative.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral constraints beyond that: names must not be translated and prices must not be converted or estimated. It still does not explain ordering, recency window, or pagination, so it stops short of a 5.

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 core purpose in the first clause, then appends the formatting constraints. No wasted sentences, though the translation/price rules are somewhat tangential to a read tool and could be seen as output-policy boilerplate.

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 carries some burden for describing return values; it mentions 'rating and feedback' but not the shape or ordering of results. For a simple two-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not 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% – place_id and limit are both documented in the schema, including default and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get recent guest reviews for a venue') and clarifies the payload ('rating and feedback'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_experience or get_quote, which return different data entirely, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it should not be confused with.

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 never says when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid venue place_id. The formatting instructions about proper nouns and prices are output-handling rules, not usage guidance, so nothing routes the agent to this tool over its 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the data source ('live site map, so it is comprehensive and always current') and the two-mode response shape. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup that is minor.

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 purpose and scoping behavior, which is the right ordering. It is somewhat long, since the trailing proper-noun and price-preservation rules read as response-formatting policy rather than tool selection guidance, but each sentence does carry usable instruction.

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, and the description compensates by describing the shape of results (countries each with a city count, or cities within a country). Combined with the annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact response envelope is unspecified.

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 both fields (locale, country) are documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the country parameter's behavioral meaning (country in → cities out, omit → all countries), but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource — 'List all destinations where DayPass is live' — and defines the two resolution modes (all countries with city counts, or cities within a given country). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_experiences or check_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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when the user has not named a place, or names a large country and you need to ask which city.' That is strong context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the case where the user has named a specific place, so routing is implied rather than fully specified.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description isn't needed for the safety profile. It adds genuine behavioral value beyond them: localization rules ('proper nouns — do not translate') and strict price handling ('never convert or estimate; show the currency as given'). It says nothing about auth or rate limits, but those aren't relevant to a read-only render.

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?

Purpose and trigger conditions are front-loaded, and the localization/pricing directives are each a single tight sentence. Slightly long overall, but every sentence carries a distinct instruction, so little is wasted.

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 usefully enumerates the returned card contents (gallery, rating, hours, pricing, cancellation policy, book button) and states the key formatting constraints. The main remaining gap is sibling routing against 'get_experience'.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds that the id comes 'from a venue's experiences', which is marginal, and says nothing extra about the optional date or locale fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Show one DayPass experience as an interactive detail card') and enumerates what the card contains. However, it never differentiates from the near-duplicate sibling 'get_experience', so an agent must infer the render-vs-fetch distinction on its own.

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 trigger context with concrete example utterances ('details for Fairmont', 'tell me more about the second one'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, leaving the overlap with 'get_experience' and 'render_results' unaddressed.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the UI shape (card rail + map), that no separate search call is needed, that names are proper nouns not to be translated, and that prices must be shown exactly as given. It stops short of describing pagination or result-count behavior, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Purpose and output are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage and constraints. The seven-example list is longer than necessary for a definition that already states intent coverage, but each sentence is otherwise load-bearing and no clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given that, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: intent coverage, multilingual examples, follow-up handling, sibling relationship, and the presentation constraints on names and prices.

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 eight parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds only an indirect hint that inputs mirror search_experiences; it contributes no syntax, format, or defaulting detail 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Show DayPass experiences for a place') and describes the rendered output (interactive card rail with map, List/Map toggle) with the data fields shown. It also positions itself against search_experiences by stating it takes the same inputs and returns the same data, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Explicit when-to-use coverage: it enumerates intent families (find, browse, compare, plan) and gives multilingual example utterances, including ones that never say 'DayPass' or 'experience'. It also covers follow-up turns that mutate the search (date, type, budget, sort) and names the sibling whose inputs it shadows.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: sold-out venues are returned with available:false, results are not rendered on screen, and prices must never be converted or estimated. It stops short of return-format/pagination detail, but this is well above the annotation bar.

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 purpose and the returned shape, then usage routing, then naming/price guardrails. Dense but largely non-redundant; the proper-noun and price-exactness sentences are operational instructions rather than tool semantics, which slightly dilutes focus.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the returned fields, covering edge cases (sold-out venues, availability flag, booking link) that an agent needs for reasoning tasks. Combined with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, nothing material 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 the baseline is 3. The description only adds a small nuance beyond the schema — that country alone works for smaller markets like Mauritius, and that prices/currency must be passed through verbatim — while city/date/sort/type/locale semantics live entirely in 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 (search) and resource (DayPass venues and their bookable experiences), plus the query axes (city or country/island). It explicitly distinguishes itself from render_results and get_experience, so an agent can route without opening sibling 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when you need the data to reason or answer a specific question'), when-not ('to show options to the user, use render_results'), and the escalation path for detail ('call get_experience with an experience id'). Concrete example questions make the intent unambiguous.

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