Happy Island Cottage booking

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: calendars are live but refreshed only about every 2 hours, so results can lag reality. It also discloses the end-exclusive range convention, that a checkout day is bookable as a check-in, the minimum-stay filter on openWindows, and the clippedAtWindowEnd flag meaning a gap may extend past 'to'.

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 what is returned and how fresh it is, and every clause carries operational meaning. It is dense and the three-home list duplicates the enum descriptions, which is the only real 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it largely does: booked ranges, openWindows, and the clippedAtWindowEnd flag. It stops short of a full response shape (e.g., whether each booking includes guest counts or just dates), which is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds: the 400-day maximum window and the default today-plus-180 are not in the schema, and the end-exclusive meaning of 'to' is spelled out in plain language. Property semantics (sleeps, minimum stay) are repeated from the enum description rather than newly added.

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: returns booked date ranges and open windows for three named homes from live calendars. This is clearly distinct from the siblings get_quote and request_booking, which do quoting and booking rather than lookup, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the lookup to run before get_quote or request_booking, but the description never names those siblings or says when not to call it. The explicit defaults (today plus 180 days, 400-day cap) give useful framing but not 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?

The annotations already mark it read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavior: nothing is booked or held, the result includes a full fee and tax breakdown plus a payment schedule, and the possible error codes are enumerated. These details go well beyond the annotation hints.

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 pricing purpose is front-loaded, followed by output components, payment schedule, error codes, and the read-only clarification. Despite being dense, every element is relevant to understanding or safely invoking an exact quote.

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, but the description enumerates the returned price components, taxes, total, and payment schedule. Combined with the listed error codes and the read-only guarantee, it gives an agent enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 input schema already explains each parameter, including the property enum, date formats, dog fee, discount code, and guest capacity. The description reinforces a few implications such as dog fee and discount, but adds little parameter-level meaning 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: returns an exact all-in price for one home over a date range, using the same pricing engine as the booking form. It is clearly a pricing tool rather than a booking tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools check_availability and request_booking.

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 clear context for use: an exact quote for a specific home and date range, with no booking or holding. It also lists error cases that indicate when the quote cannot be produced. However, it never explicitly says when to call this instead of check_availability or request_booking.

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?

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses that nothing is charged now, that the owner confirms by email with a payment link, that every call reaches a real person, and enumerates error codes (MISSING_CONTACT, GUEST_APPROVAL_REQUIRED). This adds real consequence-level context consistent with openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, without contradicting anything.

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 critical constraint — call only after guest approval — is front-loaded right after the purpose sentence, and the error list is compactly delegated ('as get_quote, plus ...'). It is slightly dense with overlapping warnings about duplicates and unapproved requests, but no sentence 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?

For an 11-parameter, non-idempotent, outward-facing write with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: consent gate, charge timing, who is contacted, and failure modes. Nothing material is left unanswered.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining the intent behind guestApproved ('to confirm that' the guest approved) and by framing pricing parity with get_quote. It does not add format or constraint detail for the other ten parameters, which the schema already covers.

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 ('Sends a booking request to the owner on the guest's behalf') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_quote by noting pricing comes from 'the same engine as get_quote' while this action is a request-to-book, not a confirmed booking. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus availability checks or quoting.

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 an explicit precondition chain: only after the guest has seen the quote and explicitly asked for the request, with a mechanical confirmation via guestApproved=true. It also states hard exclusions ('never send tests, duplicates or requests the guest has not approved'), leaving nothing to inference.

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