DharmikVibes Wellness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explicitly stating the server cannot book or take payment, preventing misuse for transactions, though it could further clarify that the response is purely informational.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and key limitation are front-loaded.

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 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations already covering safety and idempotency, the description provides everything an agent needs: the contact channels, booking context, and the explicit no-transaction limitation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters since none exist.

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 that the tool provides contact channels (WhatsApp, email, enquiry page, partner email) and explains how booking works. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like fetch or search, but its informational contact-support purpose is unmistakable.

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 sets clear context by stating 'This server cannot book or take payment,' which tells the agent to use this tool only for contact/booking information rather than transactional actions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the intended use case is clear.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds useful scope information — that this returns the *full public text* across several page types plus the canonical URL — but says nothing about failure behavior for bad ids, redirects, or truncation of long pages.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the return value and uses the parenthetical to enumerate page types. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries 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?

For a one-parameter, idempotent read with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what comes back, in what shape (text plus URL), for which page families. The remaining gap is the unresolved overlap with get_offering, which an agent would still have to guess about.

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 id parameter already documents the accepted formats (journeys/..., retreats/..., blog/<slug>, or a full URL). The description's reference to 'one page' and the content types only loosely echoes that, so it adds little beyond the schema — the baseline of 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 the resource precisely and enumerates the content it returns (journey itinerary, retreat programme, inclusions, guest care, blog article card) plus the URL. The verb is carried by the name/title rather than the description, and the boundary with the sibling get_offering is not drawn, so it falls 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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of get_offering, search, or list_offerings, even though get_offering is a close-sounding sibling that an agent could easily pick by mistake. The only usage signal ('one page', 'full public text') is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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 safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral signal by disclosing that this returns the 'whole page text' — a potentially large payload — plus booking/contact guidance. It omits any caveats on response size, invalid ids, or truncation.

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?

A single dense sentence with the highest-value content front-loaded ('One offering in full') and no filler. Every clause contributes either payload scope or a downstream action.

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 and a single required parameter, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (structured fields, full text, plan, inclusions/exclusions, booking path). It stops short of stating failure behavior for unknown ids or response-size expectations for a 'whole page text' payload.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including accepted id formats and URL forms, so the schema carries the semantics entirely. The description adds nothing about the id beyond what is already structured, which is the expected baseline.

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 the specific resource (one offering) and enumerates the payload it returns: structured fields, full page text with day-by-day plan, inclusions/exclusions, and booking instructions. The phrase 'in full' implicitly contrasts it with list_offerings/search, though the verb (retrieve by id) is implied rather than stated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the detail lookup for a single offering referenced by search or list_offerings, but the description never says when to prefer it over those siblings or what conditions exclude it. The id-origin guidance ('from search or list_offerings') lives in the schema, not the description.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-value context (date, teaser, link) and hints that the list is the site-displayed feed, but says nothing about how many items come back, ordering, or whether the list is ever paginated.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and then the returned fields; there is no filler and nothing in a second sentence would be needed.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the source, the content type, and the returned fields. Only the item count and ordering are missing, which are minor for a 'recent articles' feed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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?

The description has a specific verb ('Recent wellness articles ... shown on the site') and names the resource and source (DharmikVibes blog), plus the fields returned (date, teaser, link). It doesn't distinguish this from siblings like search or fetch, which an agent might also try for blog content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of search or fetch, and no exclusions. The reader must infer that this is the fixed site feed rather than a searchable archive.

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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by detailing the returned fields (place, duration, price label, kind, page URL) and the filter, which goes beyond what the annotations provide. Pagination is not mentioned, but that is a minor omission.

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 sentence plus a short filter clause, with no wasted words. It could be more front-loaded with an action verb (e.g., 'Lists all offerings...') for better scanability, but it remains efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers the optional filter and the scope ('every'). An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without further context.

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 optional 'type' parameter with its allowed values. The description repeats the same values without adding new semantics like default behavior or format details, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the resource (offerings) and enumerates the data fields returned, making the tool's purpose evident. However, the action verb 'list' is only implied by the tool name and title, not explicitly in the description, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_offering or search.

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 provides the optional type filter and its allowed values, which hints at usage. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_offering (for a single offering) or search, nor any 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.

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by naming the return fields (ids, titles, URLs, snippet) and the id-to-fetch handoff, though it omits result limits or ordering.

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 no filler: purpose and scope first, return shape and next step second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers both what goes in and what comes back, plus the follow-up call. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the single `query` param already includes two concrete examples, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the implicit notion that this is a free-text lookup, no syntax or scoping 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?

States a specific verb (search) and enumerates exactly which content types are covered: journeys, retreats, experiences, sessions, guest-care pages, blog. The mention of passing an id to `fetch` also implicitly separates it from the fetch and list_* 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?

Clearly establishes the discovery-then-fetch workflow ("pass an id to fetch for the full text"), which tells the agent when to chain to a sibling. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. when to prefer list_offerings or list_blog_posts over a free-text search.

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