Greetwell Experiences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'read-only' (a safety trait) and the date format, but does not mention any other behavior such as whether party_size affects availability, data freshness, or error conditions. The disclosure is minimal and largely redundant with the 'get' in the tool name.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and front-loads the key information ('Read-only availability').

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?

The tool has three parameters including an optional party_size, but the description only hints at the date. With no annotations and minimal description, the agent lacks information about how to correctly invoke the tool (e.g., what product_id refers to, how party_size alters behavior). Although an output schema exists, it does not cover parameter semantics or usage context. The description is too sparse for a 3-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only adds meaning for 'date' (format). 'product_id' is not explicitly mapped to the activity, and 'party_size' is entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as providing availability for an activity on a specific date, with a format hint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (details, search, recommendations) by focusing on availability. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check', relying on the tool name for the action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity_details or search_activities. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen over 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, lists key response fields, and importantly flags that certain listing fields contain authoritative eligibility/logistics rules that should be checked before answering guest questions. This is useful behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 every clause adds value. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 simple one-parameter detail lookup with an output schema available, the description is complete. It explains the operation, names response fields, and highlights the authoritative data fields, which is more than sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 schema has a single required parameter `product_id` with zero description coverage in the schema. The tool description only loosely implies that the parameter identifies the activity/product, but does not explain its format, source, or how to obtain a valid value. Given the low coverage, the description should have compensated more explicitly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only details for a single activity/product.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_activities (searching) and get_activity_availability (availability), making the purpose immediately apparent.

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 when to use the tool—when needing details for a single activity/product—and contrasts with the broader search tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude when to use siblings like get_activity_availability or get_complementary_recommendation, so it stops short of full 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating 'Read-only' and 'ranked', and by listing output fields (booking_link, thumbnail_url, item_card). However, it does not explain the ranking criteria, potential errors, or how the system behaves with invalid or missing parameters. It is transparent at a basic level but lacks depth.

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 primary purpose and key output details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient for complete understanding and correct invocation. It covers the high-level purpose and some output fields, but leaves parameter semantics and behavioral nuances unexplained. The output schema partially mitigates the return-value aspect, but not the input requirements.

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 schema has 9 parameters with 0% descriptive coverage, and the description does not compensate. It only mentions product_id as the anchor, leaving parameters like date, location, time_slot, party_size, radius_miles, has_children, includes_children, and max_recommendations completely unexplained. This is a critical gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 function: 'Read-only ranked complementary activities anchored to a source product_id.' It specifies the verb (get), the resource (complementary activities), and the key anchor (product_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_activities, which focus on broader discovery rather than complementary recommendations.

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: when you need complementary activities based on a source product_id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_activity_availability or search_activities, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisite conditions. The guidance is implied 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Read-only' which signals a non-destructive operation, and it mentions result fields (booking_link, thumbnail_url, group_size, item_card). However, it does not explain pagination, ranking, rate limits, or how the read-only nature is enforced. This is a minimal viable disclosure.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key output fields. No fluff or redundancy; every word contributes.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It does not explain how the location object works, what 'item_card' summarizes, or how this search relates to complementary recommendations. The description would be more complete with a sentence about additional filters and typical usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions location/query/date, leaving limit, party_size, has_children, radius_miles, and includes_children unexplained. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify how they interact or that they are additional filters, creating a significant semantic gap.

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 'Read-only search for activities by location/query/date' – a specific verb (search) with a resource (activities) and scope (filters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_activity_details or get_activity_availability, which are more focused on specific lookups.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to search activities by location, query, or date. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the phrasing 'search' vs siblings' 'get' implies a distinction.

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