booking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that output is blocked date ranges from today onward, that ranges are all-day, and that they are end-exclusive so a stay can start on another booking's checkout day. This is useful behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the important boundary semantics are packed into the final sentence without bloat.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and date boundary semantics. It could specify response structure or behavior for invalid/partial parameters, but the essential calling contract is clear.

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%, but the description compensates by naming check_in/check_out, specifying YYYY-MM-DD format, and explaining how they alter the result. It could add more about handling only one parameter, but it clearly establishes the intended combined usage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether Lilla Älva is available.' It then clarifies two distinct modes, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_property_info, get_quote, and submit_booking_request.

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 gives clear context for both invocation modes: without arguments it returns all blocked ranges, with check_in/check_out it checks a specific stay. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage intent is unambiguous.

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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup and defines the fixed scope (the Lilla Älva property), but it does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, requires no parameters, or describe the response shape. This is acceptable but leaves some behavioral traits unstated.

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 entire description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the most important content categories and includes the property name and location. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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, static property-information tool, the description covers all the main content areas an agent would need to decide to call it. Because there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response format or read-only nature would make it fully complete, but the current description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero properties, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead focuses on what the tool returns; no additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 specific, informative nouns to enumerate exactly what the tool returns—description, amenities, house rules, booking flow, and contact details—for a named property (Lilla Älva). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which handle availability, quotes, and booking submission.

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 listed content (house rules, amenities, contact details, booking flow) makes it clear when an agent should call this tool: whenever the user needs property-level information before or instead of checking availability, requesting a quote, or submitting a booking. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 must carry the behavioral disclosure. It gives useful context by stating that the result is an EUR breakdown and enumerates the mandatory and optional components. It does not explicitly mention whether this operation is read-only, non-binding, or has any side effects, though the 'get' prefix strongly implies a calculation-only action. This is an adequate but not comprehensive 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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the key information ('Price breakdown in EUR') and then lists components without redundancy. Every element (nightly rates, cleaning, add-ons) earns its place, and it avoids repeating schema-level details like parameter formats or defaults.

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 provides a broad sense of what is returned: a breakdown with the main pricing components. It does not cover error handling, quote validity, or the exact return data structure, but these are not usually required for a simple quote tool. The key purpose and the influencing parameters are described, so the definition is nearly complete.

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 low (33%), and the description helps by tying `bed_linens` and `hot_tub` to their pricing, mentioning the one-time dog fee for `number_of_dogs`, and saying nightly rates are date-dependent to imply `check_in`/`check_out` meaning. It does not fully clarify how `number_of_guests` affects price beyond the per-person linens, so the added meaning is partial but valuable.

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 returns a price breakdown in EUR for a stay, with nightly rates, cleaning fee, and optional add-ons. It is distinct from siblings because it addresses pricing, while `check_availability` deals with date availability, `get_property_info` with property details, and `submit_booking_request` with booking. However, it lacks an explicit verb ('get' is only in the title), so it doesn't fully meet the 'specific verb' criterion.

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 this is the tool to call when a price estimate for a stay is needed, since it describes the decomposition of the quote. It does not explicitly say when to use it versus the siblings, nor does it state conditions like 'do not use this to book'. The implied context and the sibling names convey enough, but the guidance is not made 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool does not charge, creates a pending request, and that the owner confirms/declines within 24 hours. It also advises using real guest data only after agreement. While it does not cover every possible behavior (e.g., error handling, rate limits), the key side effects and safety implications are well disclosed, meriting a 4.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, immediately clarifies the key non-charge/pending behavior, and ends with the critical usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly readable and 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 the tool has 10 parameters, 5 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning of most parameters, does not describe the response or confirmation workflow in detail, and does not mention any necessary preconditions like checking availability first. An agent could not confidently determine correct values for optional fields or what to expect after submission. The description covers the main purpose but leaves substantial gaps for a complex 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 compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It mentions the guest's real name and email and that dates and estimated total are agreed, but it does not elaborate on any of the optional parameters (hot_tub, bed_linens, number_of_dogs, special_requests, guest_phone) or the exact format of check_in/check_out. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's names and constraints, leaving agents without guidance on many parameters. This is a significant 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 the verb 'Submit' and the resource 'booking request' for Lilla Älva. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it creates a pending request and is not an instant booking, which differentiates it from check_availability, get_property_info, and get_quote. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 on when to use the tool: it is for submitting a booking request, not for instant booking, and explicitly states that it does not charge. It also gives prerequisites such as needing the guest's real name/email and explicit agreement on dates and estimated total. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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