get_quotePrice breakdown in EUR for a stay at Lilla Älva: date-dependent nightly rates, mandatory cleaning fee, and optional add-ons (bed linens & towels per person, Hot Tub Service per stay, one-time dog fee).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hot_tub | No | Hot Tub Service (€49 per stay) | |
| check_in | Yes | ||
| check_out | Yes | ||
| bed_linens | No | Rent bed linens & towels (per person) | |
| number_of_dogs | No | ||
| number_of_guests | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent about what the quote includes: date-dependent nightly rates, a mandatory cleaning fee, and optional add-ons, and it specifies EUR currency. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether a quote is binding or expires, or whether it creates any booking, which would be useful for a pricing tool.
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, well-organized sentence that fronts the purpose and then efficiently lists the pricing components. There is no filler or repetition; every clause adds relevant detail about what the quote includes.
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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential inputs and the composition of the quote well enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gaps are missing usage alternatives, quote validity or non-binding status, and explicit response shape, but these are secondary given the title and sibling context.
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 only 33%, but the description compensates by explaining key parameter semantics: 'date-dependent nightly rates' maps to check_in/check_out, 'per person' clarifies bed_linens, 'per stay' clarifies hot_tub, and 'one-time dog fee' maps to number_of_dogs. It does not explain number_of_guests or date formatting, but those are inferable or covered by schema validation.
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: produce a price breakdown in EUR for a stay at Lilla Älva, including nightly rates, cleaning fee, and optional add-ons. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_availability and submit_booking_request even though those siblings are not explicitly named. The title and description together make the purpose 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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus check_availability, get_property_info, or submit_booking_request. The phrase 'for a stay' implies a pricing step, but the description leaves the choice to inference. An agent would benefit from explicit statements like 'use this before booking' or 'use submit_booking_request to actually reserve'.
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 clearly distinct function: availability checking, property information, pricing, and booking submission. There is no overlap between the four tools, so an agent can easily select the right one for the current step.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, descriptive verbs (check, get, get, submit). The naming style is uniform snake_case and each name clearly signals its purpose.
Four tools is exactly the right scope for a single-property booking server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the guest booking flow without redundancy or bloat.
The booking lifecycle is fully covered for this domain: guest can discover property details, check availability, obtain a price quote, and submit a booking request. Since bookings are confirmed manually by the owner via email, no additional booking management tools are needed.