Magenta Private Island

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value: it names the upstream source (resort booking system), specifies the money figures exclude tax and fees, and warns that unit counts are omitted — all non-obvious behaviors not carried by annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of return contents; every clause carries information (source, fields, tax caveat, omission caveat). Dense but not padded.

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 must carry return semantics and it does so thoroughly — availability set, average nightly rate, pre-tax total, booking link, and the explicit omission of unit counts. Only the lack of routing guidance against the booking-link sibling keeps it short of full.

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 check_in/check_out formats and the adults bound are already documented. The description reinforces the date-scoping intent but adds nothing about the adults parameter or date-range constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Live availability and prices for specific dates from the resort's booking system') and enumerates exactly what is returned: open villas/suites/island, average nightly rate, pre-tax total, and a pre-filled booking link. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_booking_link, whose function is partially absorbed by the 'booking link with the dates filled in' clause.

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 by 'for specific dates' — an agent can infer it applies to date-bound availability/pricing questions. There is no explicit when-not or routing to alternatives (get_booking_link, submit_inquiry, get_policy), and the one limitation given ('Unit counts are not shown') is a data caveat rather than usage 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what happens downstream (traveler picks a villa or suite and pays securely) and that no reservation is created, but it never says what is actually returned — a URL string, a page payload, or a link with an expiry.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return behavior and followed by the single most important scoping caveat. Nothing is wasted and no clause is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter read-only link generator with complete annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, downstream flow, and the no-reservation guarantee. With no output schema present, it should have stated the return type (a URL) explicitly, which is the one 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% and both parameters already document the YYYY-MM-DD format. The description only echoes that 'the dates' get filled in, adding no constraint semantics such as whether past dates, same-day stays, or date ranges are rejected — the baseline 3 for fully documented params applies.

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 artifact: returns the resort's booking page with dates prefilled, which is concrete enough for an agent to know it produces a link rather than availability data or a reservation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling how_to_book or from submit_inquiry, so it stops short of a 5.

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 (the traveler is ready to book, so hand off the pre-filled page). The line 'No reservation is made by this tool' functions as a partial when-not, steering the agent away from treating it as a booking action, but no alternative sibling is named for the actual booking or for process questions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'current' facts scoped to a single subject, which is useful, but says nothing about invalid-subject handling or return format.

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?

One sentence, verb-first, with no filler. The subject enumeration is dense but justified given the 0% schema coverage; the only mild awkwardness is 'facts on one subject'.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key missing piece (valid subject values). Only error/edge behavior for unrecognized subjects is absent.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the burden — and it does so by enumerating the accepted subject values (deposit, balance, cancellation, etc.). It does not specify matching rules such as case sensitivity or exact-string requirements, so it falls short of full compensation.

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?

Specific verb (returns) and resource (booking policy facts) with a scope qualifier ('on one subject'). The enumerated subject list makes it distinguishable from siblings like search_facts, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 subject enumeration implies the required usage pattern, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over how_to_book, list_topics, or search_facts, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what is returned: a booking page and reservations team contact details. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or pagination, but none are suggested by the annotations or 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the concrete return contents and use cases. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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 no-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the agent will get back and when those returns are useful, so no essential calling context is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter behavior, and there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the empty 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 states a specific resource and return contents: the booking page for live availability and reservations, plus reservations team phone and email. It clearly distinguishes this as an informational booking-contact tool rather than a search or policy tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as search_site or search_facts.

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 usage context: use it for live availability/reservations and for exact totals, whole-island stays, and other questions. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the intended scenarios are explicit enough for an agent to route correctly.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context with no output schema: it discloses that results include per-topic fact counts and the date/fingerprint of the published fact set, hinting at versioning semantics.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned detail. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the remaining burden of explaining returns, which it does by naming topics, fact counts, date and fingerprint. It is nearly complete, though it stops short of noting pagination or ordering behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description needs to compensate for.

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 (lists) and resource (fact topics) plus the payload details (fact counts, publication date and fingerprint), so the agent knows exactly what it enumerates. It is clearly distinct from search_facts in resource even without naming a sibling, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other tools.

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 by the resource: browse available fact topics rather than search within them. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no routing to search_facts or search_site for the cases where the agent actually needs fact contents.

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?

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-open-world read, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the facts are 'approved' and 'current' (a provenance/freshness guarantee) and results come back in 'guest-ready wording with their date,' which tells the agent the output is quotable and time-stamped. It says nothing about result counts, ranking, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the resort identity; the long colon-separated scope list is load-bearing because it defines what counts as a fact here. Slightly list-heavy, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 3-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, content scope, freshness, and the shape of the return value ('matching facts in guest-ready wording with their date'). The remaining hole is routing: nothing tells the agent why this beats search_site or how_to_book for a given question.

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 67%: query and topic carry descriptions (topic explicitly defers to list_topics), while limit has none and its 1-25 bound is undocumented. The description's category list loosely maps to what query/topic accept but adds no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Searches the approved, current facts about Magenta Private Island...' followed by an enumerated scope (villas, rates, inclusions, dining, activities, transfers, families, deposits, cancellation). That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_site or get_policy, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied: the enumerated fact categories suggest it is for guest-facing factual questions, and the return note ('guest-ready wording') hints at the customer-facing path. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative or exclusion versus search_site, get_policy, or how_to_book, all of which plausibly compete for the same query.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (passages with page title, section and link) and the content-currency rule relative to search_facts, which is behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 verb and resource are front-loaded and the currency rule is placed last, which is reasonable ordering. The parenthetical list of eight competitor island names is bloated and could be trimmed without losing meaning, weakening the signal-to-noise ratio.

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 usefully explains the return format (passages with title, section, link). Annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the absence of any note on result limits, ranking, or pagination, which matters for a search tool that silently defaults its limit.

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 50%: query is documented in the schema, but limit (integer 1-10, no default) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about parameter behavior, ranking, or what limit controls, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it searches the full text of magentaprivateisland.com pages and articles, and enumerates the content types it indexes (FAQ, island guides, comparison pages). It is distinguishable from siblings because it scopes itself to site prose rather than structured facts, though the sibling search_facts is only differentiated via a tie-break rule rather than an explicit purpose contrast.

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 names the sibling search_facts and gives a concrete selection rule ('Where a passage and search_facts differ, the fact is current'), which is real routing guidance. However, it never states positively when to prefer this tool over search_facts or the other siblings (get_policy, how_to_book, list_topics), so the guidance is partial.

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?

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the data goes to a third-party team (Magenta), the reply arrives asynchronously by email, and a privacy boundary is stated ('Never include payment card numbers'). This complements openWorldHint=true by naming the actual external destination rather than just flagging that the tool reaches outside.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what happens, who it's for, and the two constraints. The name/email/question payload is front-loaded before the eligibility and safety notes.

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 usefully explains that the outcome is an email reply rather than a structured response. It is close to complete for a 9-parameter submission tool, but leaves the semantics of the five optional fields untouched.

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 only 44% across 9 parameters. The description clarifies the meaning and required status of traveler_agreed and frames the message body as the traveler's own words, but phone, guests, check_in, check_out and occasion get no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 concrete verb and resource (sends the traveler's name, email and question to the Magenta reservations team) plus the response channel (reply by email). The action is unmistakably distinct from the read-oriented siblings (search_site, get_policy, check_availability), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with how_to_book or get_booking_link, which are the closest conceptual neighbors.

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 clear applicability ('For whole-island stays, weddings, groups, special requests or anything else') and a hard precondition ('Requires the traveler's agreement to share these details'). It does not state when NOT to use it or point to an alternative for cases that don't need a human reply.

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