Greetwell Experiences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully indicates 'Read-only' nature (safety hint) and specifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), but omits error handling (invalid product_id, past dates), rate limits, or whether availability is real-time vs cached.

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?

Extremely compact single sentence (9 words). Front-loads 'Read-only' as a behavioral hint and parenthetically includes the date format. However, brevity comes at the cost of leaving parameters undocumented given zero schema coverage.

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?

Acceptable for a read-only tool with an output schema (return values need not be described), but insufficient given 0% input schema coverage. The description should explain the party_size parameter and clarify that product_id identifies the activity, especially since the tool name uses 'activity' while the parameter is 'product_id'.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'date' with required format and implies 'activity' maps to product_id, but completely omits explanation of 'party_size' (optional, defaults to null) and what effect it has on availability calculations.

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 the core action (retrieving availability) and resource (activity on a date) clearly. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_activity_details' which might also return availability information, nor does it clarify what 'availability' means (time slots, capacity, boolean, etc.).

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_activities' or 'get_activity_details'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a product_id from search) or when to include optional parameters like party_size.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Read-only' and highlights that listing content fields carry authoritative rules (e.g., minimum age). This provides behavioral context beyond the tool's basic function, though no annotations are present to contradict or confirm.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It lists response fields and adds a usage note, but could be more structured (e.g., separating fields from usage advice).

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description adequately covers the response and important rules. The single parameter is straightforward, though the description could explicitly mention it.

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 sole parameter product_id is not described in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not add meaning beyond the tool name. However, the parameter is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose.

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 it retrieves read-only details for a single activity/product and lists specific response fields (booking_link, thumbnail_url, group_size, item_card). This differentiates it from siblings like get_activity_availability (for availability) and search_activities (for searching).

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 advises checking listing content fields before answering questions, implying a use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity_availability or search_activities.

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?

The description explicitly states 'read-only', which discloses that the tool does not modify data. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not elaborate on ranking logic, potential errors, or any behavioral constraints beyond the read-only nature.

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 long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second detailing output fields. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for the agent to understand how to use parameters properly. Although an output schema exists, the description only lists a few output fields, leaving gaps about other possible outputs or behaviors.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly references product_id. It provides no explanations for the other 8 parameters (date, location, party_size, etc.), leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from parameter names.

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 purpose: it is read-only, provides ranked complementary activities anchored to a source product_id. It also specifies what each recommendation includes (booking_link, thumbnail_url, item_card). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_activities which return general search results.

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 complementary activities are needed based on a product_id, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like search_activities or when not to use. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool is 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. With no annotations provided, this is valuable. However, it omits other important behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then detailing output fields. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

The description provides the output fields and search criteria, but does not explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or how it relates to sibling tools. The existence of an output schema means return values need no further explanation.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the description only mentions three of eight parameters (location, query, date). No details on formats, constraints, or defaults for the remaining five parameters (limit, party_size, etc.) are provided.

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 performs a 'Read-only search for activities by location/query/date', specifying the verb, resource, and key search criteria. It also mentions the included fields in results, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_activity_details.

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 the tool is for searching activities based on location, query, or date, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_activity_availability or get_complementary_recommendation. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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