Read-only ranked complementary activities anchored to a source product_id. Each recommendation includes booking_link, thumbnail_url, and a standardized item_card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| time_slot | No | ||
| party_size | No | ||
| product_id | Yes | ||
| has_children | No | ||
| radius_miles | No | ||
| includes_children | No | ||
| max_recommendations | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: search for discovery, details for a specific product, availability for date checking, and complementary recommendations for cross-sell. The descriptions clearly delineate boundaries, with no overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_activity_availability, get_activity_details, get_complementary_recommendation, search_activities). This creates a predictable and intuitive API surface.
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only experiences discovery and information service. Each tool is necessary and non-redundant, covering search, details, availability, and recommendations without unnecessary bloat.
For a read-only API, the tool set covers the full guest journey: searching activities, viewing detailed eligibility rules, checking availability, and accessing complementary suggestions. The inclusion of booking_link and standardized item_card ensures agents have all needed information for recommendations, with no obvious gaps.